On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 1:06 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 16:17:21 +0800 kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git mm-stable > > head: 5fb2ea3111f4ecc6dc4891ce5b00f0217aae9a04 > > commit: 4aaa60dad4d1c96151dec51098aed866bb6e867d [219/240] mm: allow per-VMA locks on file-backed VMAs > > config: x86_64-defconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230813/202308131610.jF4ncWp6-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config) > > compiler: gcc-12 (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0 > > reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230813/202308131610.jF4ncWp6-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/reproduce) > > > > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of > > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags > > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202308131610.jF4ncWp6-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > In file included from include/linux/build_bug.h:5, > > from include/linux/container_of.h:5, > > from include/linux/list.h:5, > > from include/linux/smp.h:12, > > from include/linux/kernel_stat.h:5, > > from mm/memory.c:42: > > mm/memory.c: In function 'lock_vma_under_rcu': > > >> mm/memory.c:5410:41: error: implicit declaration of function 'vma_is_tcp'; did you mean 'vma_is_dax'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > 5410 | if (unlikely(!vma->anon_vma && !vma_is_tcp(vma))) > > | ^~~~~~~~~~ > > include/linux/compiler.h:77:45: note: in definition of macro 'unlikely' > > 77 | # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0) > > | ^ > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > > > > This later gets accidentally fixed by Suren's "mm: handle userfaults > under VMA lock". > > If Matthew can suggest a fix for this I can queue it close to "mm: > allow per-VMA locks on file-backed VMAs" to minimize the size of the > bisection hole? I thought Matthew's suggestion here https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZNerqcNS4EBJA%2F2v@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ would fix this. Dos it not?
