Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:12:26 +0100
Message-ID: <87o8ehmayd.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc:     kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
        clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
Subject: Re: arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c:58:36: error: implicit declaration of function 'perf_num_counters'
In-Reply-To: <20210413200057.ankb4e26ytgal7ev@archlinux-ax161>
References: <202103262006.nHFq086E-lkp@intel.com>
        <20210413200057.ankb4e26ytgal7ev@archlinux-ax161>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue)
 FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/27.1
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 21:00:57 +0100,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> wrote:

[...]

> I just ran into this again. It is not a clang specific issue, it
> reproduces quite easily with arm64 defconfig minus CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
> and gcc 10.3.0:
> 
> arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c: In function 'kvm_perf_init':
> arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c:58:36: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'perf_num_counters'; did you mean 'dec_mm_counter'?
> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>    58 |  if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_PMU) && perf_num_counters() > 0)
>       |                                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>       |                                    dec_mm_counter
> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> 
> I am not sure what the cleanest solution would be for providing a static
> inline version of perf_num_counters() would be, as only arm64 actually
> uses it (sh and s390 define it but it does not appear to be used) but it
> is only available through CONFIG_ARM_PMU instead of just
> CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS like the other two architectures mentioned above.

As you point out, KVM/arm64 is the only user of perf_num_counters()
across the whole kernel. The whole oprofile subsystem has been
removed, so maybe a a bigger cleanup is in order.

I'll post something shortly.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.