Re: [rcu:rcu/next 30/45] include/linux/compiler.h:343:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'smp_read_barrier_depends'

[Mark Rutland]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:07:25AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:44:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I am happy to take the patches, but let's make sure that I am up to
> > speed on the current state and dependencies.  Here is my current
> > scorecard, please double-check:
> > 
> > 1.	Your patcheset from October 12th for nuking lockless_dereference():
> > 	lkml.kernel.org/r/1507818377-7546-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@xxxxxxx
> 
> Yes, that's correct -- those three patches are up-to-date.
> 
> > 2.	Mark Rutland's prepatory patchset for nuking ACCESS_ONCE():
> > 	-rcu, v4.14-rc4..251e52a951b0 ("rcutorture: formal: prepare for
> > 	ACCESS_ONCE() removal").  Depends on #1.
> 
> I don't think there's a dependency on #1 here, for the difference it makes.
> Mark has also updated his series on this branch (Acks and fixes), so you
> should pull this instead of picking patches:
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git access-once-prep
> 
> > 3.	My mop-up patchset for two remaining occurrences of
> > 	ACCESS_ONCE() in documentation and a comment.  No real urgency
> > 	or dependencies here. -rcu, 11721220e6bf ("treewide: Kill off
> > 	remaining ACCESS_ONCE()".
> > 
> > 4.	Mark's scripted patchset for nuking ACCESS_ONCE(), which will
> > 	be run my Linus, hopefully at the end of the merge window that
> > 	takes #1 and #2.
> 
> Just FYI, but Mark has also put #3 and #4 on this branch:
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git access-once
> 
> but those two patches haven't changed since the list posting.

Given #4 will need to be regenerated, there's not much point picking #3
from there, but feel free to add my Ack!

> > 5.	My patchset for removing most smp_read_barrier_depends()
> > 	instances.  -rcu, 11721220e6bf..b7a74661caeb ("keyring: Remove
> > 	now-redundant smp_read_barrier_depends()").  These depend on
> > 	#1, and many of them are non-trivial, so they will likely
> > 	straggle in over time as they accumulate sufficient testing
> > 	and/or acks.  Three of them are ready to go in.
> > 
> > 6.	Removing smp_read_barrier_depends() from the InfiniBand drivers.
> > 	These use cases are a bit obscure, so may take some time.
> > 	Andrea Parri kindly volunteered to chase these down, but could
> > 	use responses to his queries to the InfiniBand maintainers.
> > 	These will likely depend on #1, though as Peter Zijlstra pointed
> > 	out, there is no record of any Alpha systems using InfiniBand,
> > 	so maybe they can be treated independently.
> > 
> > Did I get that right?  If I have the wrong patches or am missing some
> > dependencies, please let me know.  Otherwise, I will create a branch
> > including available patches from 1-3 and 5 above.
> > 
> > Are people comfortable with my pushing the straightforward stuff
> > (that is, excluding #5 and #6) into the next merge window?
> 
> That works for me, and you can have my Ack if you need it:
> 
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>

Sounds good to me, too.

Thanks,
Mark.