Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 25 Jul 2018 12:09:53 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
Cc:     riel@surriel.com, peterz@infradead.org, songliubraving@fb.com,
        linux@armlinux.org.uk, dave.hansen@intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: asm/tlb.h: Fix build error implicit func declaration
Message-ID: <20180725100953.GA26481@gmail.com>
References: <20180725095557.19668-1-anders.roxell@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20180725095557.19668-1-anders.roxell@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


* Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org> wrote:

> Building on arm 32 with LPAE enabled we don't include asm-generic/tlb.h,
> where we have tlb_flush_remove_tables_local and tlb_flush_remove_tables
> defined.
> mm/memory.c: In function ‘tlb_remove_table_smp_sync’:
> mm/memory.c:339:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘tlb_flush_remove_tables_local’; did you mean ‘tlb_remove_table’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   tlb_flush_remove_tables_local(mm);
>   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   tlb_remove_table
> mm/memory.c: In function ‘tlb_table_flush’:
> mm/memory.c:372:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘tlb_flush_remove_tables’; did you mean ‘tlb_remove_table’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   tlb_flush_remove_tables(tlb->mm);
>   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   tlb_remove_table
> 
> To fix this issue we define them in arm 32's specific asm/tlb.h file.
> 
> Fixes: 2ff6ddf19c0e ("x86/mm/tlb: Leave lazy TLB mode at page table free time")
> Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
> ---
> 
> Ingo, would it make sense for you to pick it up into the x86 tree since
> that contains the bug ?

Done and sorry about that! Will push your fix out to -next as well ASAP.

Thanks,

	Ingo