Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-20585-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 09:28:33 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mm changes for v6.8
Message-ID: <ZZ0DsS7LGJO0NAq6@gmail.com>
References: <ZZvd5KZKVXAtM1+F@gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wi9aEe9BuiM2DQNsGoUg=ZeQS6EfOs+0pz3kTZ=qvf=pg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wi9aEe9BuiM2DQNsGoUg=ZeQS6EfOs+0pz3kTZ=qvf=pg@mail.gmail.com>


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 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 these days
> >    and generate better code, and update misleading/outdated comments as well.
> 
> This does not even compile for me.
> 
>   arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess_64.h: In function ‘__untagged_addr’:
>   arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess_64.h:25:28: error: implicit declaration
> of function ‘__my_cpu_var’; did you mean ‘put_cpu_var’?
> [-Werror=implicit-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.

Sorry about that and agreed. Indeed the build failure was hidden by another 
branch, and while I did test-build and test-boot the x86/mm branch before 
sending it out, but my test config didn't have CONFIG_ADDRESS_MASKING=y ... 
which ... masked the build failure. The bots that do per-tree testing 
didn't catch this either.

I've now sorted it out in our trees, will send the new x86/mm in a few days.

Thanks,

	Ingo