Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] delay: Replace kernel.h with the necessary inclusions

[Guenter Roeck]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 06:58:13PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 08:30:55AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 06:03:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell,
> > > especially when there are circular dependencies are involved.
> > > 
> > > Replace kernel.h inclusion with the list of what is really being used.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > In next-20211028:
> > 
> > Building riscv32:defconfig ... failed
> > --------------
> > Error log:
> > arch/riscv/lib/delay.c: In function '__delay':
> > arch/riscv/lib/delay.c:77:17: error: implicit declaration of function 'cpu_relax'
> > 
> > Building riscv:defconfig ... failed
> > --------------
> > Error log:
> > arch/riscv/lib/delay.c: In function '__delay':
> > arch/riscv/lib/delay.c:77:17: error: implicit declaration of function 'cpu_relax'
> > 
> > Building s390:defconfig ... failed
> > --------------
> > Error log:
> > <stdin>:1559:2: warning: #warning syscall futex_waitv not implemented [-Wcpp]
> > In file included from arch/s390/pci/pci_insn.c:12:
> > arch/s390/include/asm/facility.h: In function '__stfle':
> > arch/s390/include/asm/facility.h:98:22: error: implicit declaration of function 'min_t'
> > 
> > bisect to this patch. Probably more, but it is difficult to find out
> > since -next is too badly broken and has build failures all over the place.
> 
> Thanks for the report!
> 
> I have run it on x86_64 with `kcbench -m ...` and no failures.
> 
> Can you share all build errors you found so far? I believe none of them related
> to x86* code.
> 
> Above just revealed the problematic places in the first place. Why the
> programmers rely on delay.h to include full bloated header pile?! (Yeah, this
> is rhetorical, so please share the errors, I'll try to address them)
> 

The ones listed above are the ones I was able to identify. As I said, there
are so many compile and runtime failures in linux-next that it is difficult
to track down individual failures. Just to give you an idea (this is for
next-20211028):

Build results:
	total: 153 pass: 115 fail: 38
Failed builds:
	alpha:allmodconfig
	arm:allmodconfig
	arm:omap2plus_defconfig
	arm:davinci_all_defconfig
	arm64:defconfig
	arm64:allmodconfig
	csky:allmodconfig
	h8300:allnoconfig
	h8300:tinyconfig
	h8300:edosk2674_defconfig
	h8300:h8300h-sim_defconfig
	h8300:h8s-sim_defconfig
	m68k:allmodconfig
	mips:defconfig
	mips:allmodconfig
	mips:allnoconfig
	mips:tinyconfig
	mips:bcm47xx_defconfig
	mips:bcm63xx_defconfig
	mips:ath79_defconfig
	mips:ar7_defconfig
	mips:e55_defconfig
	mips:cavium_octeon_defconfig
	mips:malta_defconfig
	mips:rt305x_defconfig
	nds32:allmodconfig
	parisc:allmodconfig
	parisc:generic-32bit_defconfig
	parisc64:generic-64bit_defconfig
	powerpc:allmodconfig
	riscv32:defconfig
	riscv32:allmodconfig
	riscv:defconfig
	riscv:allmodconfig
	s390:defconfig
	s390:allmodconfig
	sparc64:allmodconfig
	xtensa:allmodconfig
Qemu test results:
	total: 480 pass: 315 fail: 165
Failed tests:
	<too many to list them all>

Build and boot logs are as always at https://kerneltests.org/builders
in the 'next' column in case you want to do some digging yourself.

Guenter