Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the rcu tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 11:13:38AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 12:16:45PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> > failed like this:
> > 
> > In file included from include/linux/resource_ext.h:19:0,
> >                  from include/linux/pci.h:32,
> >                  from include/drm/drmP.h:50,
> >                  from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:28:
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/mock_gem_device.c: In function 'mock_gem_device':
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/mock_gem_device.c:177:9: error: 'SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU' undeclared (first use in this function)
> >          SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU);
> >          ^
> > include/linux/slab.h:149:4: note: in definition of macro 'KMEM_CACHE'
> >    (__flags), NULL)
> >     ^
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/mock_gem_device.c:177:9: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> >          SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU);
> >          ^
> > include/linux/slab.h:149:4: note: in definition of macro 'KMEM_CACHE'
> >    (__flags), NULL)
> >     ^
> > /
> > 
> > Caused by commit
> > 
> >   24b7cb25b8d1 ("mm: Rename SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU to SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU")
> 
> Awesome rename. Count us in among the people who first thought this
> provides more guarantees than it does.

Glad you like it!  ;-)

> > interacting with commit
> > 
> >   0daf0113cff6 ("drm/i915: Mock infrastructure for request emission")
> > 
> > from the drm-intel tree.
> > 
> > I added the following merge fix patch:
> > 
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:09:49 +1100
> > Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915: merge fix for "mm: Rename SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU to
> >  SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU"
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Should we handle this with a topic branch? It's trivial to resolve, but I
> fear the note that this conflict exists might get lost somewhere between
> now and when the drm pull lands in Linus' inbox in 2 months ...
> 
> Otoh he's probably going to compile test drm extra carefully and will
> notice :-)

If it gets too ugly, I can always allow both SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU
and SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU as synonyms in 4.12, and then remove
SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU in 4.13.

							Thanx, Paul

> -Daniel
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/mock_gem_device.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/mock_gem_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/mock_gem_device.c
> > index 6a8258eacdcb..9f24c5da3f8d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/mock_gem_device.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/mock_gem_device.c
> > @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ struct drm_i915_private *mock_gem_device(void)
> >  	i915->requests = KMEM_CACHE(mock_request,
> >  				    SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN |
> >  				    SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT |
> > -				    SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU);
> > +				    SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU);
> >  	if (!i915->requests)
> >  		goto err_vmas;
> >  
> > -- 
> > 2.11.0
> > 
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch
>