[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gTVr7wiN5t4wUsqoWYpNajjj=77SEHC0Ew_gw0eDs93Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:06:59 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/numa_emulation: Fix uniform size build failure
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> > config attached.
>
> Doh, I intended to attach the config - attached now.
>
>> > These numa_emulation changes are a bit of a trainwreck - I'm removing both
>> > num_emulation commits from -tip for now, could you please resubmit a fixed/tested
>> > combo version?
>>
>> So I squashed the fix and let the 0day robot chew on it all day with no reports
>> as of yet. I just recompiled it here and am not seeing the link failure, can you
>> send me the details of the kernel config + gcc version that is failing?
>
> My guess: it's some weird Kconfig combination in this 32-bit config.
>
> Can you reproduce it with this config?
Yup, got it, thanks!
Turning on debuginfo I get:
arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.o: In function `split_nodes_size_interleave_uniform':
arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c:257: undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
Previously we were dividing by a power-of-2 constant MAX_NUM_NODES,
and I believe in my builds the compiler was still deducing the
constant from the "nr_nodes = MAX_NUM_NODES" assignment. Fix inbound,
and I believe it will make it even clearer the difference between the
typical split and the new uniform split capability.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists