linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the arm-perf 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: <98ffbcf6-a646-ac2-5785-f78644f7cbe@os.amperecomputing.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 22:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Ilkka Koskinen <ilkka@...amperecomputing.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
cc:     Ilkka Koskinen <ilkka@...amperecomputing.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the arm-perf tree


Hi Stephen,

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the arm-perf tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/ampere_cspmu.c: In function 'ampere_cspmu_set_ev_filter':
> drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/ampere_cspmu.c:164:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'writel' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>  164 |         writel(threshold, cspmu->base0 + PMAUXR0);
>      |         ^~~~~~
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>
> Caused by commit
>
>  290a9c0e55f8 ("perf: arm_cspmu: ampere_cspmu: Add support for Ampere SoC PMU")
>
> I have used the arm-perf tree from next-20231009 for today.

Thanks for catching the bug! It doesn't seem to happen on arm64 build but 
I can reproduce it on x86_64 build indeed.


Will, it seems that "#include <linux/io.h>" is missing from 
ampere_cspmu.c. After that also x86_64 build goes through. How would you 
like to get the bug fixed? Shall I submit a new version of the patch, and 
you would replace the old patch with the new one or is it better to
create a completely new patch that only adds the missing include line?

Cheers, Ilkka