linux-kernel - Re: SH: error: implicit declaration of function 'init_cache_node

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]

Message-ID: <2f29a441-5105-5f62-9e06-d1c97b08801a@infradead.org>
Date:   Sun, 14 Nov 2021 14:19:07 -0800
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>
Subject: Re: SH: error: implicit declaration of function
 'init_cache_node_node'

On 11/14/21 2:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 2:17 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> on arch/sh/,
>> CONFIG_SMP is not defined,
>> CONFIG_NUMA=y,
>> CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG is not defined:
>>
>> ../mm/slab.c: In function 'slab_memory_callback':
>> ../mm/slab.c:1143:23: error: implicit declaration of function 'init_cache_node_node'; did you mean 'drain_cache_node_node'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>    1143 |                 ret = init_cache_node_node(nid);
>>
>>
>> commit 76af6a054da4
>> Author: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
>> Date:   Mon Oct 18 15:15:32 2021 -0700
>>
>>       mm/migrate: add CPU hotplug to demotion #ifdef
>>
>>
>> How should we handle this config?
> 
> I think we can safely assume that NUMA without SMP is not a useful
> configuration on SH and add a dependency in Kconfig for it.
> 
> I assume this came from some randconfig build rather than a config
> that someone was intentionally using? My guess would be that testing
> sh randconfig kernels is not overly productive as you likely need
> countless patches before there is a chance of it working most of
> the time. I haven't tried this myself, but I spend a lot of time fixing
> randconfig failures on arm and x86, and I whenever I try any other
> architecture, there is simply too much work needed upfront.

I understand why you guess that it's from a randconfig, but it's not.
It's from migor_defconfig.

-- 
~Randy