Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-20270-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZZvd5KZKVXAtM1+F@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZZvd5KZKVXAtM1+F@gmail.com>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 18:06:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wi9aEe9BuiM2DQNsGoUg=ZeQS6EfOs+0pz3kTZ=qvf=pg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mm changes for v6.8
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 03:35, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>  - Robustify pfn_to_kaddr()
>
>  - Improve the __untagged_addr() code: RIP-relative addresses are fine th=
ese days
>    and generate better code, and update misleading/outdated comments as w=
ell.

This does not even compile for me.

  arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess_64.h: In function =E2=80=98__untagged_addr=
=E2=80=99:
  arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess_64.h:25:28: error: implicit declaration
of function =E2=80=98__my_cpu_var=E2=80=99; did you mean =E2=80=98put_cpu_v=
ar=E2=80=99?
[-Werror=3Dimplicit-function-declaration]

WTH?

Maybe this has worked in your tree by mistake because there was some
branch dependency that just happened to work out because you had
merged things in a different order.

But that would very much not be ok regardless. Those branches should
be tested independently, and clearly they were not.

             Linus