On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:34 AM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 09:16:03AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On 2020-06-25 06:03, kernel test robot wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve: > > > > > > [auto build test WARNING on linus/master] > > > [also build test WARNING on v5.8-rc2 next-20200624] > > > [cannot apply to kvmarm/next arm64/for-next/core arm-perf/for-next/perf] > > > [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. > > > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use as documented in > > > https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch] > > > > > > url: > > > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/David-Brazdil/Split-off-nVHE-hyp-code/20200618-203230 > > > base: > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git > > > 1b5044021070efa3259f3e9548dc35d1eb6aa844 > > > config: arm64-randconfig-r021-20200624 (attached as .config) > > > compiler: clang version 11.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project > > > 8911a35180c6777188fefe0954a2451a2b91deaf) > > > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): > > > wget > > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross > > > -O ~/bin/make.cross > > > chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross > > > # install arm64 cross compiling tool for clang build > > > # apt-get install binutils-aarch64-linux-gnu > > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree > > > COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross > > > ARCH=arm64 > > > > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > > > > > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/switch.c:244:28: warning: no previous > > > > > prototype for function 'hyp_panic' [-Wmissing-prototypes] > > > void __hyp_text __noreturn hyp_panic(struct kvm_cpu_context > > > *host_ctxt) > > > > I really wish we could turn these warnings off. They don't add much. > > Or is there an annotation we could stick on the function (something > > like __called_from_asm_please_leave_me_alone springs to mind...)? > > Agreed, I've caught myself skim-reading the kbuild robot reports now > because they're often just noise, and then having to force myself to look at > them properly when I remember. Even just something in the subject to > say "the only problems are W=1 warnings" would help. Is that possible? When the W=1 reports started showing up, it took me a while to figure out these warnings were only enabled at W=1. I asked Philip to help denote these in the reports, and Philip was kind enough to add a note in the report about W=1. I agree that the note could still be more prominent. Another part of me wants to move -Wmissing-prototypes to W=2, but that's just biding time until 0day starts reporting on those. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
