Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Aug 2022 11:08:19 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Siddh Raman Pant <code@siddh.me>
Cc:     x86 <x86@kernel.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees 
        <linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/numa: Use cpumask_available instead of hardcoded
 NULL check
Message-ID: <Yuo7A0KYoNnbgwWT@gmail.com>
References: <20220731160913.632092-1-code@siddh.me>
 <YukFgFTaq4Aw+uht@gmail.com>
 <1825f63b142.8968bde3116633.1242410031840350968@siddh.me>
 <Yuo2UkkyaYtZ3rMZ@gmail.com>
 <18262ed2459.44b0d74d434377.3690496800292832933@siddh.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <18262ed2459.44b0d74d434377.3690496800292832933@siddh.me>
Precedence: bulk


* Siddh Raman Pant <code@siddh.me> wrote:

> > Does 'allmodconfig' reproduce the warning for you:
> > 
> >   $ make allmodconfig
> >   $ make arch/x86/mm/numa.o
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > If yes, then this could be due to gcc-12, as it doesn't reproduce with 
> > gcc-11 for me:
> > 
> >    gcc version 11.2.0 (Ubuntu 11.2.0-19ubuntu1) 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> >     Ingo
> > 
> 
> There is no reason why allmodconfig would trigger the warning, [...]

Well, unless I'm misreading your changelog, all the warning needs to 
trigger is CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y.

> as it has CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y, but the warning is because of the 
> other case.

What 'other case'? I've re-read the discussion and don't see it, but maybe 
I'm a bit daft this morning ...

> Did you try the config file I had linked to earlier?

Yes, and it didn't trigger the warning.

Thanks,

	Ingo