| Message ID | 1390911762-5659-2-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:52:42PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > From: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > It seems that forward declaration couldn't work well with typedef, use > struct spinlock directly to avoiding following build errors: > > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:81, > from include/linux/seqlock.h:35, > from include/linux/time.h:5, > from include/uapi/linux/timex.h:56, > from include/linux/timex.h:56, > from include/linux/sched.h:17, > from arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:17: > include/linux/spinlock_types.h:76: error: redefinition of typedef 'spinlock_t' > /root/linux-next/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h:563: note: previous declaration of 'spinlock_t' was here > > build fix for upstream SHA1: b3084f4db3aeb991c507ca774337c7e7893ed04f > for 3.13 stable series I don't understand, why is this needed? Is there a corrisponding patch upstream that already does this? What went wrong with a "normal" backport of the patch to 3.13? confused, greg k-h
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 10:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:52:42PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > From: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > It seems that forward declaration couldn't work well with typedef, use > > struct spinlock directly to avoiding following build errors: > > > > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:81, > > from include/linux/seqlock.h:35, > > from include/linux/time.h:5, > > from include/uapi/linux/timex.h:56, > > from include/linux/timex.h:56, > > from include/linux/sched.h:17, > > from arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:17: > > include/linux/spinlock_types.h:76: error: redefinition of typedef 'spinlock_t' > > /root/linux-next/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h:563: note: previous declaration of 'spinlock_t' was here > > > > build fix for upstream SHA1: b3084f4db3aeb991c507ca774337c7e7893ed04f > > for 3.13 stable series > > I don't understand, why is this needed? Is there a corrisponding patch > upstream that already does this? What went wrong with a "normal" > backport of the patch to 3.13? There's a corresponding patch in powerpc-next that I'm about to send to Linus today, but for the backport, the "fix" could be folded into the original offending patch. Cheers, Ben.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:57:36AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 10:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:52:42PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > From: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > It seems that forward declaration couldn't work well with typedef, use > > > struct spinlock directly to avoiding following build errors: > > > > > > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:81, > > > from include/linux/seqlock.h:35, > > > from include/linux/time.h:5, > > > from include/uapi/linux/timex.h:56, > > > from include/linux/timex.h:56, > > > from include/linux/sched.h:17, > > > from arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:17: > > > include/linux/spinlock_types.h:76: error: redefinition of typedef 'spinlock_t' > > > /root/linux-next/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h:563: note: previous declaration of 'spinlock_t' was here > > > > > > build fix for upstream SHA1: b3084f4db3aeb991c507ca774337c7e7893ed04f > > > for 3.13 stable series > > > > I don't understand, why is this needed? Is there a corrisponding patch > > upstream that already does this? What went wrong with a "normal" > > backport of the patch to 3.13? > > There's a corresponding patch in powerpc-next that I'm about to send to > Linus today, but for the backport, the "fix" could be folded into the > original offending patch. Oh come on, you know better than to try to send me a patch that isn't in Linus's tree already. Crap, I can't take that at all. Send me the git commit id when it is in Linus's tree, otherwise I'm not taking it. And no, don't "fold in" anything, that's not ok either. I'll just go drop this patch entirely from all of my -stable trees for now. Feel free to resend them when all of the needed stuff is upstream. greg k-h
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> writes: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:57:36AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 10:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:52:42PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> > > From: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> > > >> > > It seems that forward declaration couldn't work well with typedef, use >> > > struct spinlock directly to avoiding following build errors: >> > > >> > > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:81, >> > > from include/linux/seqlock.h:35, >> > > from include/linux/time.h:5, >> > > from include/uapi/linux/timex.h:56, >> > > from include/linux/timex.h:56, >> > > from include/linux/sched.h:17, >> > > from arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:17: >> > > include/linux/spinlock_types.h:76: error: redefinition of typedef 'spinlock_t' >> > > /root/linux-next/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h:563: note: previous declaration of 'spinlock_t' was here >> > > >> > > build fix for upstream SHA1: b3084f4db3aeb991c507ca774337c7e7893ed04f >> > > for 3.13 stable series >> > >> > I don't understand, why is this needed? Is there a corrisponding patch >> > upstream that already does this? What went wrong with a "normal" >> > backport of the patch to 3.13? >> >> There's a corresponding patch in powerpc-next that I'm about to send to >> Linus today, but for the backport, the "fix" could be folded into the >> original offending patch. > > Oh come on, you know better than to try to send me a patch that isn't in > Linus's tree already. Crap, I can't take that at all. > > Send me the git commit id when it is in Linus's tree, otherwise I'm not > taking it. > > And no, don't "fold in" anything, that's not ok either. I'll just go > drop this patch entirely from all of my -stable trees for now. Feel > free to resend them when all of the needed stuff is upstream. The fix for mremap crash is already in Linus tree. It is the build failure for older gcc compiler version that is not in linus tree. We missed that in the first pull request. Do we really need to drop the patch from 3.11 and 3.12 trees ? The patch their is a variant, and don't require this build fix. -aneesh
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:08:52PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:57:36AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > >> On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 10:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > >> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:52:42PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > >> > > From: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >> > > > >> > > It seems that forward declaration couldn't work well with typedef, use > >> > > struct spinlock directly to avoiding following build errors: > >> > > > >> > > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:81, > >> > > from include/linux/seqlock.h:35, > >> > > from include/linux/time.h:5, > >> > > from include/uapi/linux/timex.h:56, > >> > > from include/linux/timex.h:56, > >> > > from include/linux/sched.h:17, > >> > > from arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:17: > >> > > include/linux/spinlock_types.h:76: error: redefinition of typedef 'spinlock_t' > >> > > /root/linux-next/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h:563: note: previous declaration of 'spinlock_t' was here > >> > > > >> > > build fix for upstream SHA1: b3084f4db3aeb991c507ca774337c7e7893ed04f > >> > > for 3.13 stable series > >> > > >> > I don't understand, why is this needed? Is there a corrisponding patch > >> > upstream that already does this? What went wrong with a "normal" > >> > backport of the patch to 3.13? > >> > >> There's a corresponding patch in powerpc-next that I'm about to send to > >> Linus today, but for the backport, the "fix" could be folded into the > >> original offending patch. > > > > Oh come on, you know better than to try to send me a patch that isn't in > > Linus's tree already. Crap, I can't take that at all. > > > > Send me the git commit id when it is in Linus's tree, otherwise I'm not > > taking it. > > > > And no, don't "fold in" anything, that's not ok either. I'll just go > > drop this patch entirely from all of my -stable trees for now. Feel > > free to resend them when all of the needed stuff is upstream. > > The fix for mremap crash is already in Linus tree. What is the git commit id? > It is the build failure for older gcc compiler version that is not in > linus tree. That is what I can not take. > We missed that in the first pull request. Do we really need to drop > the patch from 3.11 and 3.12 trees ? I already did. > The patch their is a variant, and don't require this build fix. Don't give me a "variant", give me the exact same patch, only changed to handle the fuzz/differences of older kernels, don't make different changes to the original patch to make up for things you found out later on, otherwise everyone is confused as to why the fix for the fix is not in the tree. So, when both patches get in Linus's tree, please send me the properly backported patches and I'll be glad to apply them. greg k-h
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> writes: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:08:52PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> writes: >> >> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:57:36AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 10:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:52:42PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> >> > > From: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> > > >> >> > > It seems that forward declaration couldn't work well with typedef, use >> >> > > struct spinlock directly to avoiding following build errors: >> >> > > >> >> > > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:81, >> >> > > from include/linux/seqlock.h:35, >> >> > > from include/linux/time.h:5, >> >> > > from include/uapi/linux/timex.h:56, >> >> > > from include/linux/timex.h:56, >> >> > > from include/linux/sched.h:17, >> >> > > from arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:17: >> >> > > include/linux/spinlock_types.h:76: error: redefinition of typedef 'spinlock_t' >> >> > > /root/linux-next/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h:563: note: previous declaration of 'spinlock_t' was here >> >> > > >> >> > > build fix for upstream SHA1: b3084f4db3aeb991c507ca774337c7e7893ed04f >> >> > > for 3.13 stable series >> >> > >> >> > I don't understand, why is this needed? Is there a corrisponding patch >> >> > upstream that already does this? What went wrong with a "normal" >> >> > backport of the patch to 3.13? >> >> >> >> There's a corresponding patch in powerpc-next that I'm about to send to >> >> Linus today, but for the backport, the "fix" could be folded into the >> >> original offending patch. >> > >> > Oh come on, you know better than to try to send me a patch that isn't in >> > Linus's tree already. Crap, I can't take that at all. >> > >> > Send me the git commit id when it is in Linus's tree, otherwise I'm not >> > taking it. >> > >> > And no, don't "fold in" anything, that's not ok either. I'll just go >> > drop this patch entirely from all of my -stable trees for now. Feel >> > free to resend them when all of the needed stuff is upstream. >> >> The fix for mremap crash is already in Linus tree. > > What is the git commit id? upstream SHA1: b3084f4db3aeb991c507ca774337c7e7893ed04f That is patch 1 in this series. > >> It is the build failure for older gcc compiler version that is not in >> linus tree. > > That is what I can not take. > >> We missed that in the first pull request. Do we really need to drop >> the patch from 3.11 and 3.12 trees ? > > I already did. > >> The patch their is a variant, and don't require this build fix. > > Don't give me a "variant", give me the exact same patch, only changed to > handle the fuzz/differences of older kernels, don't make different > changes to the original patch to make up for things you found out later > on, otherwise everyone is confused as to why the fix for the fix is not > in the tree. In this specific case it may be difficult. 3.13 have other changes around the code path. It has split pmd locks etc which result in us doing a withdraw and deposit even on x86. For 3.11 and 3.12, we need to do that extra withdraw and deposit only for ppc64. Hence the variant which used #ifdef around that code. > > So, when both patches get in Linus's tree, please send me the properly > backported patches and I'll be glad to apply them. > -aneesh
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 09:55 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:08:52PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> writes: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:57:36AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > >> On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 10:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > >> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:52:42PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > >> > > From: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > >> > > > > >> > > It seems that forward declaration couldn't work well with typedef, use > > >> > > struct spinlock directly to avoiding following build errors: > > >> > > > > >> > > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:81, > > >> > > from include/linux/seqlock.h:35, > > >> > > from include/linux/time.h:5, > > >> > > from include/uapi/linux/timex.h:56, > > >> > > from include/linux/timex.h:56, > > >> > > from include/linux/sched.h:17, > > >> > > from arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:17: > > >> > > include/linux/spinlock_types.h:76: error: redefinition of typedef 'spinlock_t' > > >> > > /root/linux-next/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h:563: note: previous declaration of 'spinlock_t' was here > > >> > > > > >> > > build fix for upstream SHA1: b3084f4db3aeb991c507ca774337c7e7893ed04f > > >> > > for 3.13 stable series > > >> > > > >> > I don't understand, why is this needed? Is there a corrisponding patch > > >> > upstream that already does this? What went wrong with a "normal" > > >> > backport of the patch to 3.13? > > >> > > >> There's a corresponding patch in powerpc-next that I'm about to send to > > >> Linus today, but for the backport, the "fix" could be folded into the > > >> original offending patch. > > > > > > Oh come on, you know better than to try to send me a patch that isn't in > > > Linus's tree already. Crap, I can't take that at all. > > > > > > Send me the git commit id when it is in Linus's tree, otherwise I'm not > > > taking it. > > > > > > And no, don't "fold in" anything, that's not ok either. I'll just go > > > drop this patch entirely from all of my -stable trees for now. Feel > > > free to resend them when all of the needed stuff is upstream. > > > > The fix for mremap crash is already in Linus tree. > > What is the git commit id? Relax Greg :-) The submissions all had the commit ID of the original patch upsteam: b3084f4db3aeb991c507ca774337c7e7893ed04f The only *thing* here is due to churn upstream in 3.13, the backport is a bit different for 3.13 vs. earlier versions. The earlier ones are perfectly kosher and you should have no reason not to take them. The 3.13, well, Mahesh was a bit quick here, he sent you the actual patch that went upstream ... and a second patch to fix a problem with older gcc's that it introduces. Because it's a simple build fix of the previous patch, I suggested folding it in instead. That build fix is what is not yet upstream, it's in my -next branch which Linus hasn't pulled just yet. If that's an issue for you, just drop the 3.13 variant of the patch and we'll send it again with the build fix as soon as Linus has pulled the latter. > > It is the build failure for older gcc compiler version that is not in > > linus tree. > > That is what I can not take. > > > We missed that in the first pull request. Do we really need to drop > > the patch from 3.11 and 3.12 trees ? > > I already did. > > > The patch their is a variant, and don't require this build fix. > > Don't give me a "variant", give me the exact same patch, only changed to > handle the fuzz/differences of older kernels, don't make different > changes to the original patch to make up for things you found out later > on, otherwise everyone is confused as to why the fix for the fix is not > in the tree. The backport patch is a "variant" because of changes in the affected function that went into 3.13. > So, when both patches get in Linus's tree, please send me the properly > backported patches and I'll be glad to apply them. Ben.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 07:59:01AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > If that's an issue for you, just drop the 3.13 variant of the patch and > we'll send it again with the build fix as soon as Linus has pulled the > latter. I have done that. thanks, greg k-h
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h index d27960c89a71..bc141c950b1e 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h @@ -560,9 +560,9 @@ extern void pmdp_invalidate(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address, pmd_t *pmdp); #define pmd_move_must_withdraw pmd_move_must_withdraw -typedef struct spinlock spinlock_t; -static inline int pmd_move_must_withdraw(spinlock_t *new_pmd_ptl, - spinlock_t *old_pmd_ptl) +struct spinlock; +static inline int pmd_move_must_withdraw(struct spinlock *new_pmd_ptl, + struct spinlock *old_pmd_ptl) { /* * Archs like ppc64 use pgtable to store per pmd