On Thu, 20 May 2021 09:47:58 +0100
Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> make W=1 generates the following warning for mm/page_alloc.c
>
> mm/page_alloc.c:3651:15: warning: no previous prototype for
> ‘should_fail_alloc_page’ [-Wmissing-prototypes] noinline bool
> should_fail_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> This function is deliberately split out for BPF to allow errors to be
> injected. The function is not used anywhere else so it is local to
> the file. Make it static which should still allow error injection
> to be used similar to how block/blk-core.c:should_fail_bio() works.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index aaa1655cf682..26cc1a4e639b 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3648,7 +3648,7 @@ static inline bool
> __should_fail_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> #endif /* CONFIG_FAIL_PAGE_ALLOC */
>
> -noinline bool should_fail_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int
> order) +static noinline bool should_fail_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp_mask,
> unsigned int order) {
> return __should_fail_alloc_page(gfp_mask, order);
> }
Hi Mel,
It seems that this breaks builds with CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y.
Maybe that warning was a false positive because
should_fail_alloc_page() is referenced via a macro?
I proposed to revert it, feel free to propose another fix.
Regards,
--
per aspera ad upstream
