On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:22 PM Arjun Roy <arjunroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 9:29 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 9:20 PM Arjun Roy <arjunroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > Apologies for the spam - looks like I forgot to rebase the first time > > > I sent this out. > > > > > > Actually, on a related note, it's not 100% clear to me whether this > > > patch (which in its current form, applies to net-next) should instead > > > be based on the mm branch - but the most recent (clean) checkout of mm > > > fails to build for me so net-next for now. > > > > > > > It is due to "mm: page-writeback: simplify memcg handling in > > test_clear_page_writeback()" patch in the mm tree. You would need to > > reintroduce the lock_page_memcg() which returns the memcg and make > > __unlock_page_memcg() non-static. > > To clarify, Shakeel - the tag "tag: v5.12-rc2-mmots-2021-03-11-21-49" > fails to build on a clean checkout, without this patch, due to a > compilation failure in mm/shmem.c, for reference: > https://pastebin.com/raw/12eSGdGD > (and that's why I'm basing this patch off of net-next in this email). > > -Arjun Another seeming anomaly - the patch sent out passes scripts/checkpatch.pl but netdev/checkpatch finds plenty of actionable fixes here: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20210316041645.144249-1-arjunroy.kdev@xxxxxxxxx/ Is netdev using some other automated checker instead of scripts/checkpatch.pl? -Arjun
