[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6fba4b93-0e7d-0f92-6ffc-690888274f00@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2023 09:56:28 +0800
From: Zheng Yejian <zhengyejian1@...wei.com>
To: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
<mhiramat@...nel.org>, <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>, <shuah@...nel.org>
CC: <oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing: Fix cpu buffers unavailable due to
'record_disabled' messed
On 2023/8/5 09:15, kernel test robot wrote:
> Hi Zheng,
>
> kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:
>
> [auto build test ERROR on linus/master]
> [also build test ERROR on rostedt-trace/for-next v6.5-rc4 next-20230804]
> [cannot apply to rostedt-trace/for-next-urgent]
> [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
>
> url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Zheng-Yejian/tracing-Fix-cpu-buffers-unavailable-due-to-record_disabled-messed/20230804-204751
> base: linus/master
> patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230804124549.2562977-2-zhengyejian1%40huawei.com
> patch subject: [PATCH 1/2] tracing: Fix cpu buffers unavailable due to 'record_disabled' messed
> config: x86_64-defconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230805/202308050731.PQutr3r0-lkp@intel.com/config)
> compiler: gcc-12 (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0
> reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230805/202308050731.PQutr3r0-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
>
> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202308050731.PQutr3r0-lkp@intel.com/
>
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
> kernel/trace/trace.c: In function 'tracing_set_cpumask':
>>> kernel/trace/trace.c:5280:60: error: 'struct trace_array' has no member named 'max_buffer'; did you mean 'array_buffer'?
> 5280 | ring_buffer_record_disable_cpu(tr->max_buffer.buffer, cpu);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~
> | array_buffer
> kernel/trace/trace.c:5286:59: error: 'struct trace_array' has no member named 'max_buffer'; did you mean 'array_buffer'?
> 5286 | ring_buffer_record_enable_cpu(tr->max_buffer.buffer, cpu);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~
> | array_buffer
>
Thank you, robot!
I'll fix it in v2 soon.
>
> vim +5280 kernel/trace/trace.c
>
> 5260
> 5261 int tracing_set_cpumask(struct trace_array *tr,
> 5262 cpumask_var_t tracing_cpumask_new)
> 5263 {
> 5264 int cpu;
> 5265
> 5266 if (!tr)
> 5267 return -EINVAL;
> 5268
> 5269 local_irq_disable();
> 5270 arch_spin_lock(&tr->max_lock);
> 5271 for_each_tracing_cpu(cpu) {
> 5272 /*
> 5273 * Increase/decrease the disabled counter if we are
> 5274 * about to flip a bit in the cpumask:
> 5275 */
> 5276 if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, tr->tracing_cpumask) &&
> 5277 !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, tracing_cpumask_new)) {
> 5278 atomic_inc(&per_cpu_ptr(tr->array_buffer.data, cpu)->disabled);
> 5279 ring_buffer_record_disable_cpu(tr->array_buffer.buffer, cpu);
>> 5280 ring_buffer_record_disable_cpu(tr->max_buffer.buffer, cpu);
> 5281 }
> 5282 if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, tr->tracing_cpumask) &&
> 5283 cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, tracing_cpumask_new)) {
> 5284 atomic_dec(&per_cpu_ptr(tr->array_buffer.data, cpu)->disabled);
> 5285 ring_buffer_record_enable_cpu(tr->array_buffer.buffer, cpu);
> 5286 ring_buffer_record_enable_cpu(tr->max_buffer.buffer, cpu);
> 5287 }
> 5288 }
> 5289 arch_spin_unlock(&tr->max_lock);
> 5290 local_irq_enable();
> 5291
> 5292 cpumask_copy(tr->tracing_cpumask, tracing_cpumask_new);
> 5293
> 5294 return 0;
> 5295 }
> 5296
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists