Hi Christophe -
> On Jun 14, 2020, at 1:07 PM, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Even if that's only a warning, not including asm/cacheflush.h
> leads to svc_flush_bvec() being empty allthough powerpc defines
> ARCH_IMPLEMENTS_FLUSH_DCACHE_PAGE.
>
> CC net/sunrpc/svcsock.o
> net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:227:5: warning: "ARCH_IMPLEMENTS_FLUSH_DCACHE_PAGE" is not defined [-Wundef]
> #if ARCH_IMPLEMENTS_FLUSH_DCACHE_PAGE
> ^
>
> Fixes: ca07eda33e01 ("SUNRPC: Refactor svc_recvfrom()")
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> I detected this on linux-next on June 4th and warned Chuck. Seems like it went into mainline anyway.
Thanks for your patch. I've searched my mailbox. It appears I never
received your June 4th e-mail.
Does your patch also address:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=159194369128024&w=2 ?
If so, then
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
should be added to the patch description.
Ideally, compilation on x86_64 should have thrown the same warning,
but it didn't. Why would the x86_64 build behave differently than
ppc64 or i386?
> net/sunrpc/svcsock.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> index 5c4ec9386f81..d9e99cb09aab 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
> #include <net/tcp_states.h>
> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> #include <asm/ioctls.h>
> +#include <asm/cacheflush.h>
Nit: Let's include <linux/highmem.h> in net/sunrpc/svcsock.h instead
of <asm/cacheflush.h> directly.
> #include <linux/sunrpc/types.h>
> #include <linux/sunrpc/clnt.h>
> --
> 2.25.0
>
--
Chuck Lever
