> Subject: Re: [kbuild-all] [mmotm:master 149/199] lib/idr.c:583:2: error: implicit > declaration of function 'xa_lock_irqsave'; did you mean 'read_lock_irqsave'? > > Hi Andrew, > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 03:10:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >On Sat, 19 May 2018 04:21:17 +0800 kbuild test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> tree: git://git.cmpxchg.org/linux-mmotm.git master > >> head: 7400fc6942aefa2e009272d0e118284f110c5088 > >> commit: d5f90621ff2af7f139b01b7bcf8649a91665965e [149/199] lib/idr.c: > remove simple_ida_lock > >> config: x86_64-randconfig-i0-201819 (attached as .config) > >> compiler: gcc-7 (Debian 7.3.0-16) 7.3.0 > >> reproduce: > >> git checkout d5f90621ff2af7f139b01b7bcf8649a91665965e > >> # save the attached .config to linux build tree > >> make ARCH=x86_64 > >> > >> Note: the mmotm/master HEAD 7400fc6942aefa2e009272d0e118284f110c5088 > builds fine. > >> It only hurts bisectibility. > >> > > > >I'm a bit surprised we're seeing this. > >ida-remove-simple_ida_lock.patch introduces this error, and the very > >next patch ida-remove-simple_ida_lock-fix.patch fixes it. > > > >I'm pretty sure that the robot software is capable of detecting this > >situation and ignoring the error. Did that code get broken? > > Yes sorry, the robot code looks not reliable when testing the follow > up -fix patches. The check is done when first seeing the error instead > of before sending out the final report. In the 2 cases, the next patch > of the error commit could be subtly different. > > Shun Hao: to be 100% reliable, we'll also need to check the follow up > -fix patches just before sending out the report. thanks, we will follow up this to consider this situation. > > Thanks, > Fengguang > _______________________________________________ > kbuild-all mailing list > kbuild-all@xxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild-all
