Hi Anton, Sorry for the late reply. On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 07:50:00AM +0000, Anton Protopopov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:44:24AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > > Hi Anton, > > > > kernel test robot noticed the following build errors: > > > > [...] > > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable > > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202306010837.mGhA199K-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ > > How does this apply to patches? If I send a v2, should I include these tags > there? If a v2 is sent, these tags should not be included. > If this patch gets rejected, is there need to do anything to close the > robot's ticket? No need to close this ticket. Thanks for raising above concerns. We have updated the wording in our reports as below to avoid misinterpretation: If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags | Reported-by: ... | Closes: ... -- Best Regards, Yujie > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c: In function 'htab_map_pressure': > > >> kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:189:24: error: implicit declaration of function '__percpu_counter_sum'; did you mean 'percpu_counter_sum'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > 189 | return __percpu_counter_sum(&htab->pcount); > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > | percpu_counter_sum > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > > > > > > vim +189 kernel/bpf/hashtab.c > > > > 183 > > 184 static u32 htab_map_pressure(const struct bpf_map *map) > > 185 { > > 186 struct bpf_htab *htab = container_of(map, struct bpf_htab, map); > > 187 > > 188 if (htab->use_percpu_counter) > > > 189 return __percpu_counter_sum(&htab->pcount); > > 190 return atomic_read(&htab->count); > > 191 } > > 192 > > (This bug happens for !SMP case.) > > > -- > > 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service > > https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki >
