On 06/03/2025 12:03, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 06. 03. 25, 12:57, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 11:49:15AM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 06/03/2025 08:08, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>> On 06. 03. 25, 9:07, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>>> On 05. 03. 25, 18:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> 6.13-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> commit 49c87f7677746f3c5bd16c81b23700bb6b88bfd4 upstream.
>>>> ...
>>>>>> @@ -401,13 +393,8 @@ pte_t huge_ptep_get_and_clear(struct mm_
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int ncontig;
>>>>>> size_t pgsize;
>>>>>> - pte_t orig_pte = __ptep_get(ptep);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> - if (!pte_cont(orig_pte))
>>>>>> - return __ptep_get_and_clear(mm, addr, ptep);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> - ncontig = find_num_contig(mm, addr, ptep, &pgsize);
>>>>>> + ncontig = num_contig_ptes(sz, &pgsize);
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This fails to build:
>>>>>
>>>>> /usr/bin/gcc-current/gcc (SUSE Linux) 14.2.1 20250220 [revision
>>>>> 9ffecde121af883b60bbe60d00425036bc873048]
>>>>> /usr/bin/aarch64-suse-linux-gcc (SUSE Linux) 14.2.1 20250220 [revision
>>>>> 9ffecde121af883b60bbe60d00425036bc873048]
>>>>> run_oldconfig.sh --check... PASS
>>>>> Build... FAIL
>>>>> + make -j48 -s -C /dev/shm/kbuild/linux.34170/current ARCH=arm64 HOSTCC=gcc
>>>>> CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-suse-linux- clean
>>>>> arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c:397:35: error: 'sz' undeclared (first use in this
>>>>> function); did you mean 's8'?
>>>>> | s8
>>>>> arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c:397:35: note: each undeclared identifier is
>>>>> reported only once for each function it appears in
>>>>> make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:197: arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.o] Error 1
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the stable tree is missing this pre-req:
>>>> commit 02410ac72ac3707936c07ede66e94360d0d65319
>>>> Author: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
>>>> Date: Wed Feb 26 12:06:51 2025 +0000
>>>>
>>>> mm: hugetlb: Add huge page size param to huge_ptep_get_and_clear()
>>>
>>> Although this patch is marked for stable there was a conflict so it wasn't
>>> applied. I'll try to get the backport done in the next few days.
>>
>> I'll just drop this one now, can you send me the backports for both of
>> these when they are ready?
>
> FWIW, the series were three patches, not sure if later "101/157] arm64: hugetlb:
> Fix flush_hugetlb_tlb_range() invalidation level" is affected when either of the
> two discussed here is not present...
No, that one is independent and can remain.
>
> So perhaps drop both 100+101/157 for now?
>
> thanks,
