On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:16:21PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-10-18 08:39:46 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Thank you very much, hand-applied as a preparatory patch for > > "Suppress lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints", please see > > below. > okay. > > > What I don't understand is why 0day test robot didn't complain about > > my copy of the exact same patch. Or maybe it did and I fat-fingered it? > > Except that I have gotten "BUILD SUCCESS" reports for commits including > > that one. > > I don't know. It is a "defconfig" for m32r. Unless it skipped that one, > dunno.
No idea here, either. > > commit a06f537e75ea0a9e81245ede1b97bb3a5762b81b > > Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de> > > Date: Wed Oct 18 08:33:44 2017 -0700 > > > > rcu: do not include rtmutex_common.h unconditionally > > > > This commit adjusts include files and provides definitions in > > preparation > > for suppressing lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints. Without > > this preparation, architectures not supporting rt_mutex will get build > > failures. > > > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang...@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > index fed95fa941e6..969eae45f05d 100644 > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(char, rcu_cpu_has_work); > > * This probably needs to be excluded from -rt builds. > > */ > > #define rt_mutex_owner(a) ({ WARN_ON_ONCE(1); NULL; }) > > +#define rt_mutex_futex_unlock(x) WARN_ON_ONCE(1) > > > > #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */ > > > > @@ -911,8 +912,6 @@ void exit_rcu(void) > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST > > > > -#include "../locking/rtmutex_common.h" > > - > > static void rcu_wake_cond(struct task_struct *t, int status) > > { > > /* > > So this probably works. This is > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git/commit/?h=rcu%2Fdev&id=a06f537e75ea0a9e81245ede1b97bb3a5762b81b&context=40&ignorews=0&dt=0 > > and the rtmutex_common is still in the ifdef which confused me at first. > But then you wrote "preparatory" and I saw the following patch > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git/commit/?h=rcu/next&id=33d7471ce21202ce954993552c2e0298d9e0f031 > > where you move that include rtmutex_common.h. You shouldn't do that > because "rt_mutex_futex_unlock()" has been added added here for the > !BOOST + TREE case. So I thing this should break your build if you > disable CONFIG_FUTEX (which in turn unselects CONFIg_RT_MUTEX). Builds for me on x86 and 0day test robot hasn't complained, but might as well get it right. The new commits are: a06f537e75ea ("rcu: do not include rtmutex_common.h unconditionally") 4a0fb5d70bb2 ("rcu: Suppress lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints") Thanx, Paul