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: <Z7RiVtunqI9edfK4@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:35:02 +0100
From: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	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

Hi,
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 04:07:42PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After merging the bitmap tree, today's linux-next build (arm64 defconfig)
> failed like this:
> 
> arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c: In function 'arch_freq_get_on_cpu':
> arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c:270:43: error: too many arguments to function 'cpumask_next_wrap'
>   270 |                                 ref_cpu = cpumask_next_wrap(ref_cpu, policy->cpus,
>       |                                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In file included from arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h:27,
>                  from arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h:11,
>                  from arch/arm64/include/asm/irqflags.h:9,
>                  from include/linux/irqflags.h:18,
>                  from include/linux/spinlock.h:59,
>                  from include/linux/mmzone.h:8,
>                  from include/linux/gfp.h:7,
>                  from include/linux/slab.h:16,
>                  from include/linux/resource_ext.h:11,
>                  from include/linux/acpi.h:13,
>                  from arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c:14:
> include/linux/cpumask.h:317:14: note: declared here
>   317 | unsigned int cpumask_next_wrap(int n, const struct cpumask *src)
>       |              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Caused by commits
> 
>   46ac1bec179d ("cpumask: deprecate cpumask_next_wrap()")
>   43f7f920e14e ("cpumask: re-introduce cpumask_next{,_and}_wrap()")
>   65b98ea8b278 ("cpumask: drop cpumask_next_wrap_old()")
> 
> interacting with commit
> 
>   dd871ac1237f ("arm64: Provide an AMU-based version of arch_freq_get_on_cpu")
> 
> from the arm64 tree.
> 
> I have applied the following patch for today (which may not be correct).
Thank you for that.

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?

---
BR
Beata
> 
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:44:06 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] fixup for "cpumask: drop cpumask_next_wrap_old()"
> 
> interacting with commit
> 
>   dd871ac1237f ("arm64: Provide an AMU-based version of arch_freq_get_on_cpu")
> 
> from the arm64 tree.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> index 6f0cab8e746b..70db234c41a2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> @@ -231,7 +231,6 @@ void arch_cpu_idle_enter(void)
>  int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct amu_cntr_sample *amu_sample;
> -	unsigned int start_cpu = cpu;
>  	unsigned long last_update;
>  	unsigned int freq = 0;
>  	u64 scale;
> @@ -267,8 +266,7 @@ int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
>  
>  
>  			do {
> -				ref_cpu = cpumask_next_wrap(ref_cpu, policy->cpus,
> -							    start_cpu, false);
> +				ref_cpu = cpumask_next_wrap(ref_cpu, policy->cpus);
>  
>  			} while (ref_cpu < nr_cpu_ids && idle_cpu(ref_cpu));
>  
> -- 
> 2.45.2
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell