On Tue, May 23 2023 at 19:33, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, May 23 2023 at 18:24, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
>> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 04:02:09PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> mm/vmalloc.c: In function ‘_vm_unmap_aliases’:
>> mm/vmalloc.c:2220:19: error: ‘struct vmap_block_queue’ has no member named ‘vmap_blocks’
>> 2220 | xa_for_each(&vbq->vmap_blocks, idx, vb) {
>> | ^~
>
> Duh. I surely had that compile fail fixed before I boot tested that
> pile. And then I did something stupid obviously.
No. This one not. I only had the one in the last patch (missing
force_purge argument)
And this one makes me scratch my head:
struct vmap_block_queue {
spinlock_t lock;
struct list_head free;
/*
* An xarray requires an extra memory dynamically to
* be allocated. If it is an issue, we can use rb-tree
* instead.
*/
struct xarray vmap_blocks;
};
So how can your compiler complain?
>> mm/vmalloc.c:2220:19: error: ‘struct vmap_block_queue’ has no member named ‘vmap_blocks’
>> 2220 | xa_for_each(&vbq->vmap_blocks, idx, vb) {
Mine does not, but I might be missing something.
Thanks,
tglx
