[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220111232102.GI947480@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 15:21:02 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
caihuoqing@...du.com,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/pcmcia: Fix ifdef covering yenta_pm_ops
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 02:50:26PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:54 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Currently, yenta_dev_suspend_noirq(), yenta_dev_resume_noirq(),
> > and yenta_pm_ops are covered by "#ifdef CONFIG_PM", which results in
> > compiler warnings in kernels built with CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=n and CONFIG_PM=y:
>
> Hmm. Wasn't the pcmcia tree in -next? Or how did this get missed?
This bug happens when running the rcuscale and refscale tests, not the
usual rcu, lock, and scf torture tests. So I would catch it only if
I ran my overnight torture-everything test against -next during the
critical time, which I failed to do this time. :-/
My guess is that others building such kernels don't often test against
-next.
For whatever it is worth, here is my overnight torture-everything test,
which takes about 15 hours on a 16-CPU system:
./tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/torture.sh --duration 10 --do-kcsan --kcsan-kmake-arg "CC=clang-11"
> Anyway, applied directly. Thanks,
Thank you!
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists