linux-kernel - Re: [linux-next]Build Failure: kernel/watchdog.c:936:2: error: too many arguments

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: <20250430205503.4a316f48@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:55:03 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Venkat Rao Bagalkote <venkat88@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: luogengkun@...weicloud.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>, LKML
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, dianders@...omium.org,
 joel.granados@...nel.org, song@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner
 <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [linux-next]Build Failure: kernel/watchdog.c:936:2: error: too
 many arguments

Hi Venkat,

On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 11:57:12 +0530 Venkat Rao Bagalkote <venkat88@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On 28/04/25 3:11 pm, Venkat Rao Bagalkote wrote:
> >
> > On 28/04/25 4:11 am, Stephen Rothwell wrote:  
> >>
> >> On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 20:39:26 +0530 Venkat Rao Bagalkote >> <venkat88@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:  
> >>> I am observing below build failure on IBM Power8 server with >>> linux-next-20250424 repo.
> >>>
> >>> This issue seems to be introduced by the below commit. After >>> reverting the below commit, kernel build is successful.
> >>>
> >>> Bad Commit: 6b07f9a0fa41 watchdog: fix watchdog may detect false >>> positive of softlockup
> >>>
> >>> Note: To hit this issue, one should first resolve this [1] >>> <https://lore.kernel.org/all/e8bf676e-7bf0-4896-b104-ac75e1b22d2e@linux.ibm.com/>
> >>>
> >>> Repo: >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
> >>> Branch: master
> >>> GCC: 8.5.0 20210514
> >>> ldd (GNU libc) 2.28
> >>>
> >>> Attached is the .config file.
> >>>
> >>> Errors:
> >>>
> >>> kernel/watchdog.c: In function 'lockup_detector_reconfigure':
> >>> kernel/watchdog.c:936:2: error: too many arguments to function >>> '__lockup_detector_reconfigure'
> >>>     __lockup_detector_reconfigure(false);
> >>>     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>> kernel/watchdog.c:926:13: note: declared here
> >>>    static void __lockup_detector_reconfigure(void)
> >>>                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>> kernel/watchdog.c: In function 'lockup_detector_setup':
> >>> kernel/watchdog.c:940:2: error: too many arguments to function >>> '__lockup_detector_reconfigure'
> >>>     __lockup_detector_reconfigure(false);
> >>>     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>> kernel/watchdog.c:926:13: note: declared here
> >>>    static void __lockup_detector_reconfigure(void)
> >>>                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>> kernel/watchdog.c: In function 'proc_watchdog_update':
> >>> kernel/watchdog.c:962:2: error: too many arguments to function >>> '__lockup_detector_reconfigure'
> >>>     __lockup_detector_reconfigure(thresh_changed);
> >>>     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>> kernel/watchdog.c:926:13: note: declared here
> >>>    static void __lockup_detector_reconfigure(void)
> >>>                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>
> >>> If you happen to fix this, please add below tag.
> >>>
> >>> Reported-by: Venkat Rao Bagalkote <venkat88@...ux.ibm.com>  
> >> Yeah, the CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR unset version of
> >> __lockup_detector_reconfigure() was not updated :-(  
> >  
> 
> Hello Stephen,
> 
> 
> Will this be fixed, or from now on we will have to set the SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR always in the .config file.
> 
> 
> Trying to understand the way forward.

Yeah, it is still not fixed today :-(  hopefully soon.

This is caused by commit

  4ab274088f03 ("watchdog: fix watchdog may detect false positive of softlockup")

in the mm-nonmm-unstable tree.  I have reverted it today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped