Hey Ryan, On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 04:38:01PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote: > On 08/05/2024 15:24, kernel test robot wrote: > > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master > > head: e7b4ef8fffaca247809337bb78daceb406659f2d > > commit: f0f5863a0fb0fb48a5881c3f6acca1958899dd76 [10159/12060] arm64/mm: Remove PTE_PROT_NONE bit > > config: arm64-randconfig-r013-20230528 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240508/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config) > > compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0 > > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240508/202405082221.43rfWxz5-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/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > In file included from include/linux/pgtable.h:6, > > from arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h:12, > > from include/linux/io.h:13, > > from include/linux/irq.h:20, > > from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17, > > from arch/arm64/include/asm/hardirq.h:17, > > from include/linux/hardirq.h:11, > > from include/linux/interrupt.h:11, > > from include/linux/trace_recursion.h:5, > > from include/linux/ftrace.h:10, > > from arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c:12: > > arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h: In function 'pud_user_accessible_page': > >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:1102:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_valid'; did you mean 'pmd_valid'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > 1102 | return pud_valid(pud) && !pud_table(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud)); > > | ^~~~~~~~~ > > | pmd_valid > > Hi Will, > > Looks like this is due to pud_valid() not being defined for > CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS <= 2. Seems to me that this is the cleanest solution. But > pgtable folding breaks my brain so perhaps there is a better way? I think your approach is the right idea. pgtable-nopmd.h defines pud_present() as 'return 1', but I think pud_valid() can be false given that it's only used directly by the arch code. > What's the process here? Can you just merge this into the broken patch, or do I > need to re-post the series, or post a fix patch formally? for-next/mm is stable, so please just submit proper patches on top of that (and you can add a Fixes: tag as well). Cheers, Will
