On 08/05/2024 18:12, Will Deacon wrote: > 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). OK no problem - I've posted the patch. Sorry about this! > > Cheers, > > Will
