[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221202112646.5813c34b@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 11:26:46 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Benjamin Gray <bgray@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Christopher M. Riedl" <cmr@...escreens.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree
Hi all,
After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c: In function 'text_area_cpu_up_mm':
arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c:157:14: error: implicit declaration of function 'copy_init_mm' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
157 | mm = copy_init_mm();
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
Caused by commit
107b6828a7cd ("x86/mm: Use mm_alloc() in poking_init()")
interacting with commit
55a02e6ea958 ("powerpc/code-patching: Use temporary mm for Radix MMU")
from the powerpc tree.
I partially reverted commit 107b6828a7cd - I left the change to
arch/x86/mm/init.c applied. Though, I wonder if the powerpc tree should
use mm_alloc() instead of copy_init_mm() as well? The tip tree commit
says:
Instead of duplicating init_mm, allocate a fresh mm. The advantage is
that mm_alloc() has much simpler dependencies. Additionally it makes
more conceptual sense, init_mm has no (and must not have) user state
to duplicate.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists