linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the bitmap 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: <Z7TfeGxiy3_otBry@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:28:56 +0100
From: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	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 bitmap tree

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 06:23:29PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 09:16:34AM -0500, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 02:10:25PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 12:49:34AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:35:02 +0100 Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com> wrote:
> > > > > I'm currently testing a proper fix for that one.
> > > > > Should I just send it over as a diff to apply or rather a proper 'fixes' patch?
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe a proper 'fixes' patch, please, if easy - otherwise a diff is
> > > > fine.
> > > 
> > > I just talked to Beata off-list. I think she'll try to use the current
> > > for_each_cpu_wrap() API and avoid conflicts with the cpumask_next_wrap()
> > > API change.
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Yes, for_each() loops are always preferable over opencoded iterating.
> > Please feel free to CC me in case I can help.
> 
> Beata is going to post the official fix but in the meantime, to avoid
> breaking next, I'll add my temporary fix:
>
Just posted the fix [1].
Thank you all.

---
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20250218192412.2072619-1-beata.michalska@arm.com/T/#u

---
BR
Beata
> --------8<--------------------------------
> From 1b12139107798128c183838c5f4a3f7ffcea1e44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 18:20:46 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: Do not use the deprecated cpumask_next_wrap() in
>  arch_freq_get_on_cpu()
> 
> cpumask_next_wrap() will soon disappear in its current form. Use
> for_each_cpu_wrap() instead.
> 
> Fixes: 16d1e27475f6 ("arm64: Provide an AMU-based version of arch_freq_get_on_cpu")
> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 11 +++++------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> index a09b0551ec59..1544d3648554 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
>  		if (!housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TICK) ||
>  		    time_is_before_jiffies(last_update + msecs_to_jiffies(AMU_SAMPLE_EXP_MS))) {
>  			struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> -			int ref_cpu = cpu;
> +			int ref_cpu;
> 
>  			if (!policy)
>  				return -EINVAL;
> @@ -265,11 +265,10 @@ int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
>  				return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  			}
> 
> -			do {
> -				ref_cpu = cpumask_next_wrap(ref_cpu, policy->cpus,
> -							    start_cpu, true);
> -
> -			} while (ref_cpu < nr_cpu_ids && idle_cpu(ref_cpu));
> +			for_each_cpu_wrap(ref_cpu, policy->cpus, start_cpu) {
> +				if (!idle_cpu(ref_cpu))
> +					break;
> +			}
> 
>  			cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> 
>