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;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc:     kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] watchdog/hardlockup: Define
 HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH
In-Reply-To: <20230616150618.6073-7-pmladek@suse.com>
References: <20230616150618.6073-1-pmladek@suse.com>
 <20230616150618.6073-7-pmladek@suse.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Jun 2023 23:08:26 +1000
Message-ID: <871qi5otdh.fsf@mail.lhotse>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> writes:
> The HAVE_ prefix means that the code could be enabled. Add another
> variable for HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH without this prefix.
> It will be set when it should be built. It will make it compatible
> with the other hardlockup detectors.
>
> The change allows to clean up dependencies of PPC_WATCHDOG
> and HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF definitions for powerpc.
>
> As a result HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF has the same dependencies
> on arm, x86, powerpc architectures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 5 ++---
>  include/linux/nmi.h  | 2 +-
>  lib/Kconfig.debug    | 9 +++++++++
>  3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Something in this patch is breaking the powerpc g5_defconfig, I don't
immediately see what though.

../arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c: In function =E2=80=98handle_backtrace_=
ipi=E2=80=99:
../arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c:171:9: error: implicit declaration of f=
unction =E2=80=98nmi_cpu_backtrace=E2=80=99 [-Werror=3Dimplicit-function-de=
claration]
  171 |         nmi_cpu_backtrace(regs);
      |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
../arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c: In function =E2=80=98arch_trigger_cpum=
ask_backtrace=E2=80=99:
../arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c:226:9: error: implicit declaration of f=
unction =E2=80=98nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace=E2=80=99; did you mean =E2=
=80=98arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace=E2=80=99? [-Werror=3Dimplicit-function=
-declaration]
  226 |         nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace(mask, exclude_self, raise_bac=
ktrace_ipi);
      |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      |         arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors


cheers