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, 18 Mar 2020 12:41:09 +0100
From:   Guido =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FCnther?= <agx@sigxcpu.org>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org
Subject: linux-next build failure on arm64 with CMA but !NUMA
Message-ID: <20200318114109.GA65068@bogon.m.sigxcpu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Roman,
882d60d2ce725381236a158204d7ec13ff19ab25 in linux-next broke compilation
on arm64 CMA && !NUMA like

  CC      kernel/irq/irqdesc.o
mm/hugetlb.c: In function ‘hugetlb_cma_reserve’:
mm/hugetlb.c:5449:3: error: implicit declaration of function ‘for_each_mem_pfn_range’; did you mean ‘for_each_mem_range’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
   for_each_mem_pfn_range(i, nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn, NULL) {
   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
   for_each_mem_range
mm/hugetlb.c:5449:61: error: expected ‘;’ before ‘{’ token
   for_each_mem_pfn_range(i, nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn, NULL) {
                                                             ^~
Reverting that fixes the build for the moment. Would making all of this
dependent on CMA && NUMA be the right fix?
Cheers,
 -- Guido