On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 03:35:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 22:42:59 +0530 Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Is it fixable? Can we use the traditional define-before-using structure?
How about this:
diff --git a/include/linux/page-flags.h b/include/linux/page-flags.h
index ab1a0e9..d7a1055 100644
--- a/include/linux/page-flags.h
+++ b/include/linux/page-flags.h
@@ -133,6 +133,19 @@ enum pageflags {
#ifndef __GENERATING_BOUNDS_H
+/* Forward declarations */
+struct page;
+static inline int PageCompound(struct page *page);
+static inline int PageTail(struct page *page);
+static inline struct page *compound_head(struct page *page)
+{
+ unsigned long head = READ_ONCE(page->compound_head);
+
+ if (unlikely(head & 1))
+ return (struct page *) (head - 1);
+ return page;
+}
+
/* Page flags policies wrt compound pages */
#define PF_ANY(page, enforce) page
#define PF_HEAD(page, enforce) compound_head(page)
@@ -223,12 +236,6 @@ static inline int __TestClearPage##uname(struct page *page) { return 0; }
#define TESTSCFLAG_FALSE(uname) \
TESTSETFLAG_FALSE(uname) TESTCLEARFLAG_FALSE(uname)
-/* Forward declarations */
-struct page;
-static inline int PageCompound(struct page *page);
-static inline int PageTail(struct page *page);
-static struct page *compound_head(struct page *page);
-
__PAGEFLAG(Locked, locked, PF_NO_TAIL)
PAGEFLAG(Error, error, PF_NO_COMPOUND) TESTCLEARFLAG(Error, error, PF_NO_COMPOUND)
PAGEFLAG(Referenced, referenced, PF_HEAD)
@@ -450,15 +457,6 @@ static inline void clear_compound_head(struct page *page)
WRITE_ONCE(page->compound_head, 0);
}
-static inline struct page *compound_head(struct page *page)
-{
- unsigned long head = READ_ONCE(page->compound_head);
-
- if (unlikely(head & 1))
- return (struct page *) (head - 1);
- return page;
-}
-
static inline int PageCompound(struct page *page)
{
return PageHead(page) || PageTail(page);
---
It builds properly. Tested with allmodconfig of x86_64 and avr32.
>
> Also, I'm finding that the patch series introduces a pretty large
> bisection hole:
>
> include/linux/page-flags.h: In function 'PageYoung':
> include/linux/page-flags.h:327: error: implicit declaration of function 'PF_ANY'
> include/linux/page-flags.h:327: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'int')
> include/linux/page-flags.h:327: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'int')
>
> which later gets fixed up by
> page-flags-rectify-forward-declaration.patch.
How to test this? Should I apply them on top of v4.2 and bisect? And I
don't see any relation between the first two patches and this patch of
the series, then how does it fail in bisect? Am I missing something?
Confused.. :(
>
> Maybe it's time to do a wholesale refactoring of the patchset?
If this patch is the first in the series will that help?
And besides I got the auto mail from you that the patch is applied.
Now totally confused.. :(
regards
sudip
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
