linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6bc36827-83a7-3695-530d-4b90c08b92c7@kernel.dk>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:08:26 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree

On 7/15/20 3:24 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:26 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> After merging the block tree, today's linux-next build (arm
>> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
>>
>> block/blk-timeout.c: In function 'blk_round_jiffies':
>> block/blk-timeout.c:96:14: error: 'CONFIG_HZ_ROUGH_MASK' undeclared (first use in this function)
>>    96 |  return (j + CONFIG_HZ_ROUGH_MASK) + 1;
>>       |              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Caused by commit
>>
>>   91ba0f529364 ("block: relax jiffies rounding for timeouts")
>>
>> CONFIG_HZ_ROUGH_MASK is not defined for this build even though
>> CONFIG_HZ_100 is set. The arm arch does not include kernel/Kconfig.hz.
>>
>> I have reverted that commit for today.
> 
> (as I don't have the original patch in my email, I'm commenting here)
> 
>     +config HZ_ROUGH_MASK
>     +       int
>     +       default 127 if HZ_100
>     +       default 255 if HZ_250 || HZ_300
>     +       default 1023 if HZ_1000
> 
> What about other HZ_* values?

Which other ones do we have?

-- 
Jens Axboe