linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 07/61] xarray: Add the xa_lock to the radix_tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:27:32 -0600
From:   Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...il.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@....ntt.co.jp>,
        linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 07/61] xarray: Add the xa_lock to the radix_tree_root

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 03:16:23PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 02:59:32PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>> >> This is causing build breakage in the radix tree test suite in the
>> >> current linux/master:
>> >>
>> >> ./linux/../../../../include/linux/idr.h: In function ‘idr_init_base’:
>> >> ./linux/../../../../include/linux/radix-tree.h:129:2: warning:
>> >> implicit declaration of function ‘spin_lock_init’; did you mean
>> >> ‘spinlock_t’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>> >
>> > Argh.  That was added two patches later in
>> > "xarray: Add definition of struct xarray":
>> >
>> > diff --git a/tools/include/linux/spinlock.h b/tools/include/linux/spinlock.h
>> > index b21b586b9854..4ec4d2cbe27a 100644
>> > --- a/tools/include/linux/spinlock.h
>> > +++ b/tools/include/linux/spinlock.h
>> > @@ -6,8 +6,9 @@
>> >  #include <stdbool.h>
>> >
>> >  #define spinlock_t             pthread_mutex_t
>> > -#define DEFINE_SPINLOCK(x)     pthread_mutex_t x = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
>> > +#define DEFINE_SPINLOCK(x)     pthread_mutex_t x = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER
>> >  #define __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(x)        (pthread_mutex_t)PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER
>> > +#define spin_lock_init(x)      pthread_mutex_init(x, NULL)
>> >
>> >  #define spin_lock_irqsave(x, f)                (void)f, pthread_mutex_lock(x)
>> >  #define spin_unlock_irqrestore(x, f)   (void)f, pthread_mutex_unlock(x)
>> >
>> > I didn't pick up that it was needed this early on in the patch series.
>>
>> Hmmm..I don't know if it's a patch ordering issue, because this
>> happens with the current linux/master where presumably all the patches
>> are present?
>
> No, Andrew only merged the first 8 or so because of lack of review of
> the remaining patches.  Even though I cc'd people as hard as I could.
> Including you.  :-P
>
> You could, for example, review the DAX patches ...

Fair enough.  Let's get the radix tree working, and in the mean time
I'll throw it into my xfstests testing setup & take a look at the DAX
patches.