Message ID | 1445706156-20203-1-git-send-email-yu.c.chen@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Accepted, archived |
Delegated to: | Rafael Wysocki |
Headers | show |
Hi Chen, [auto build test ERROR on pm/linux-next -- if it's inappropriate base, please suggest rules for selecting the more suitable base] url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Chen-Yu/ACPI-Using-correct-irq-when-waiting-for-events/20151025-010210 config: x86_64-randconfig-x015-201543 (attached as .config) reproduce: # save the attached .config to linux build tree make ARCH=x86_64 All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): In file included from include/uapi/linux/stddef.h:1:0, from include/linux/stddef.h:4, from include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:4, from include/uapi/linux/types.h:13, from include/linux/types.h:5, from include/linux/list.h:4, from include/linux/module.h:9, from drivers/acpi/osl.c:26: drivers/acpi/osl.c: In function 'acpi_os_wait_events_complete': >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1183:6: error: implicit declaration of function 'acpi_sci_irq_valid' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) ^ include/linux/compiler.h:147:28: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if' if (__builtin_constant_p((cond)) ? !!(cond) : \ ^ >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1183:2: note: in expansion of macro 'if' if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) ^ >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1184:23: error: 'acpi_sci_irq' undeclared (first use in this function) synchronize_hardirq(acpi_sci_irq); ^ drivers/acpi/osl.c:1184:23: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in cc1: some warnings being treated as errors vim +/acpi_sci_irq_valid +1183 drivers/acpi/osl.c 1177 void acpi_os_wait_events_complete(void) 1178 { 1179 /* 1180 * Make sure the GPE handler or the fixed event handler is not used 1181 * on another CPU after removal. 1182 */ > 1183 if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) > 1184 synchronize_hardirq(acpi_sci_irq); 1185 flush_workqueue(kacpid_wq); 1186 flush_workqueue(kacpi_notify_wq); 1187 } --- 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation
This should not be a valid warning IMO, because PATCH 2/3 is based on PATCH 1/3, and the warning of implicit declaration is defined in PATCH 1/3. > -----Original Message----- > From: lkp > Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 1:19 AM > To: Chen, Yu C > Cc: kbuild-all@01.org; rjw@rjwysocki.net; lenb@kernel.org; Zhang, Rui; > Zheng, Lv; linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > pm@vger.kernel.org; Chen, Yu C; stable@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq when waiting for events > > Hi Chen, > > [auto build test ERROR on pm/linux-next -- if it's inappropriate base, please > suggest rules for selecting the more suitable base] > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Chen-Yu/ACPI-Using- > correct-irq-when-waiting-for-events/20151025-010210 > config: x86_64-randconfig-x015-201543 (attached as .config) > reproduce: > # save the attached .config to linux build tree > make ARCH=x86_64 > > All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): > > In file included from include/uapi/linux/stddef.h:1:0, > from include/linux/stddef.h:4, > from include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:4, > from include/uapi/linux/types.h:13, > from include/linux/types.h:5, > from include/linux/list.h:4, > from include/linux/module.h:9, > from drivers/acpi/osl.c:26: > drivers/acpi/osl.c: In function 'acpi_os_wait_events_complete': > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1183:6: error: implicit declaration of function > 'acpi_sci_irq_valid' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) > ^ > include/linux/compiler.h:147:28: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if' > if (__builtin_constant_p((cond)) ? !!(cond) : \ > ^ > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1183:2: note: in expansion of macro 'if' > if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) > ^ > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1184:23: error: 'acpi_sci_irq' undeclared (first use in this > function) > synchronize_hardirq(acpi_sci_irq); > ^ > drivers/acpi/osl.c:1184:23: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only > once for each function it appears in > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > > vim +/acpi_sci_irq_valid +1183 drivers/acpi/osl.c > > 1177 void acpi_os_wait_events_complete(void) > 1178 { > 1179 /* > 1180 * Make sure the GPE handler or the fixed event handler is > not used > 1181 * on another CPU after removal. > 1182 */ > > 1183 if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) > > 1184 synchronize_hardirq(acpi_sci_irq); > 1185 flush_workqueue(kacpid_wq); > 1186 flush_workqueue(kacpi_notify_wq); > 1187 } > > --- > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:08:29AM +0800, Chen, Yu C wrote: > This should not be a valid warning IMO, > because PATCH 2/3 is based on PATCH 1/3, > and the warning of implicit declaration is defined > in PATCH 1/3. Yes sorry, the robot treats the patchset as 3 independent patches: 2754 N L Oct 25 Chen Yu ( 34:0) [PATCH 2/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq when waiting for events 2756 N L Oct 25 Chen Yu ( 52:0) [PATCH 3/3][v2] ACPI / PM: Fix incorrect wakeup irq setting before suspend-to-idle 2757 N L Oct 25 Chen Yu ( 75:0) [PATCH 1/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq when uninstalling acpi irq handler And the root cause is, the 3 patches are likely sent one by one _out of order_. And there is no in-reply-to field to help reorder them into a logical patchset. Thanks, Fengguang > > -----Original Message----- > > From: lkp > > Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 1:19 AM > > To: Chen, Yu C > > Cc: kbuild-all@01.org; rjw@rjwysocki.net; lenb@kernel.org; Zhang, Rui; > > Zheng, Lv; linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > > pm@vger.kernel.org; Chen, Yu C; stable@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq when waiting for events > > > > Hi Chen, > > > > [auto build test ERROR on pm/linux-next -- if it's inappropriate base, please > > suggest rules for selecting the more suitable base] > > > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Chen-Yu/ACPI-Using- > > correct-irq-when-waiting-for-events/20151025-010210 > > config: x86_64-randconfig-x015-201543 (attached as .config) > > reproduce: > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree > > make ARCH=x86_64 > > > > All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > In file included from include/uapi/linux/stddef.h:1:0, > > from include/linux/stddef.h:4, > > from include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:4, > > from include/uapi/linux/types.h:13, > > from include/linux/types.h:5, > > from include/linux/list.h:4, > > from include/linux/module.h:9, > > from drivers/acpi/osl.c:26: > > drivers/acpi/osl.c: In function 'acpi_os_wait_events_complete': > > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1183:6: error: implicit declaration of function > > 'acpi_sci_irq_valid' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) > > ^ > > include/linux/compiler.h:147:28: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if' > > if (__builtin_constant_p((cond)) ? !!(cond) : \ > > ^ > > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1183:2: note: in expansion of macro 'if' > > if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) > > ^ > > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1184:23: error: 'acpi_sci_irq' undeclared (first use in this > > function) > > synchronize_hardirq(acpi_sci_irq); > > ^ > > drivers/acpi/osl.c:1184:23: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only > > once for each function it appears in > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > > > > vim +/acpi_sci_irq_valid +1183 drivers/acpi/osl.c > > > > 1177 void acpi_os_wait_events_complete(void) > > 1178 { > > 1179 /* > > 1180 * Make sure the GPE handler or the fixed event handler is > > not used > > 1181 * on another CPU after removal. > > 1182 */ > > > 1183 if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) > > > 1184 synchronize_hardirq(acpi_sci_irq); > > 1185 flush_workqueue(kacpid_wq); > > 1186 flush_workqueue(kacpi_notify_wq); > > 1187 } > > > > --- > > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center > > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi, Fengguang, I've forgotten to add --thread-shallow when doing git format-patch, thanks! Best Regards, Yu > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-pm- > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Fengguang Wu > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:22 AM > To: Chen, Yu C > Cc: kbuild-all@01.org; rjw@rjwysocki.net; lenb@kernel.org; Zhang, Rui; > Zheng, Lv; linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > pm@vger.kernel.org; stable@vger.kernel.org; Li, Philip > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq when waiting for events > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:08:29AM +0800, Chen, Yu C wrote: > > This should not be a valid warning IMO, because PATCH 2/3 is based on > > PATCH 1/3, and the warning of implicit declaration is defined in PATCH > > 1/3. > > Yes sorry, the robot treats the patchset as 3 independent patches: > > 2754 N L Oct 25 Chen Yu ( 34:0) [PATCH 2/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq > when waiting for events > 2756 N L Oct 25 Chen Yu ( 52:0) [PATCH 3/3][v2] ACPI / PM: Fix incorrect > wakeup irq setting before suspend-to-idle > 2757 N L Oct 25 Chen Yu ( 75:0) [PATCH 1/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq > when uninstalling acpi irq handler > > And the root cause is, the 3 patches are likely sent one by one _out of order_. > And there is no in-reply-to field to help reorder them into a logical patchset. > > Thanks, > Fengguang > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: lkp > > > Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 1:19 AM > > > To: Chen, Yu C > > > Cc: kbuild-all@01.org; rjw@rjwysocki.net; lenb@kernel.org; Zhang, > > > Rui; Zheng, Lv; linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; > > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- pm@vger.kernel.org; Chen, Yu C; > > > stable@vger.kernel.org > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq when waiting > > > for events > > > > > > Hi Chen, > > > > > > [auto build test ERROR on pm/linux-next -- if it's inappropriate > > > base, please suggest rules for selecting the more suitable base] > > > > > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Chen-Yu/ACPI-Using- > > > correct-irq-when-waiting-for-events/20151025-010210 > > > config: x86_64-randconfig-x015-201543 (attached as .config) > > > reproduce: > > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree > > > make ARCH=x86_64 > > > > > > All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > > > In file included from include/uapi/linux/stddef.h:1:0, > > > from include/linux/stddef.h:4, > > > from include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:4, > > > from include/uapi/linux/types.h:13, > > > from include/linux/types.h:5, > > > from include/linux/list.h:4, > > > from include/linux/module.h:9, > > > from drivers/acpi/osl.c:26: > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c: In function 'acpi_os_wait_events_complete': > > > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1183:6: error: implicit declaration of > > > >> function > > > 'acpi_sci_irq_valid' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) > > > ^ > > > include/linux/compiler.h:147:28: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if' > > > if (__builtin_constant_p((cond)) ? !!(cond) : \ > > > ^ > > > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1183:2: note: in expansion of macro 'if' > > > if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) > > > ^ > > > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1184:23: error: 'acpi_sci_irq' undeclared > > > >> (first use in this > > > function) > > > synchronize_hardirq(acpi_sci_irq); > > > ^ > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c:1184:23: note: each undeclared identifier is > > > reported only once for each function it appears in > > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > > > > > > vim +/acpi_sci_irq_valid +1183 drivers/acpi/osl.c > > > > > > 1177 void acpi_os_wait_events_complete(void) > > > 1178 { > > > 1179 /* > > > 1180 * Make sure the GPE handler or the fixed event > handler is > > > not used > > > 1181 * on another CPU after removal. > > > 1182 */ > > > > 1183 if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) > > > > 1184 synchronize_hardirq(acpi_sci_irq); > > > 1185 flush_workqueue(kacpid_wq); > > > 1186 flush_workqueue(kacpi_notify_wq); > > > 1187 } > > > > > > --- > > > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center > > > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the > body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Yu, On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 01:33:10AM +0000, Chen, Yu C wrote: > Hi, Fengguang, > I've forgotten to add --thread-shallow when doing git format-patch, thanks! Never mind, --thread-shallow helps but won't be unnecessary. I'll improve the patchset detection logic. Thanks, Fengguang > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-pm- > > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Fengguang Wu > > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:22 AM > > To: Chen, Yu C > > Cc: kbuild-all@01.org; rjw@rjwysocki.net; lenb@kernel.org; Zhang, Rui; > > Zheng, Lv; linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > > pm@vger.kernel.org; stable@vger.kernel.org; Li, Philip > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq when waiting for events > > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:08:29AM +0800, Chen, Yu C wrote: > > > This should not be a valid warning IMO, because PATCH 2/3 is based on > > > PATCH 1/3, and the warning of implicit declaration is defined in PATCH > > > 1/3. > > > > Yes sorry, the robot treats the patchset as 3 independent patches: > > > > 2754 N L Oct 25 Chen Yu ( 34:0) [PATCH 2/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq > > when waiting for events > > 2756 N L Oct 25 Chen Yu ( 52:0) [PATCH 3/3][v2] ACPI / PM: Fix incorrect > > wakeup irq setting before suspend-to-idle > > 2757 N L Oct 25 Chen Yu ( 75:0) [PATCH 1/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq > > when uninstalling acpi irq handler > > > > And the root cause is, the 3 patches are likely sent one by one _out of order_. > > And there is no in-reply-to field to help reorder them into a logical patchset. > > > > Thanks, > > Fengguang > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: lkp > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 1:19 AM > > > > To: Chen, Yu C > > > > Cc: kbuild-all@01.org; rjw@rjwysocki.net; lenb@kernel.org; Zhang, > > > > Rui; Zheng, Lv; linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; > > > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- pm@vger.kernel.org; Chen, Yu C; > > > > stable@vger.kernel.org > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3][v2] ACPI: Using correct irq when waiting > > > > for events > > > > > > > > Hi Chen, > > > > > > > > [auto build test ERROR on pm/linux-next -- if it's inappropriate > > > > base, please suggest rules for selecting the more suitable base] > > > > > > > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Chen-Yu/ACPI-Using- > > > > correct-irq-when-waiting-for-events/20151025-010210 > > > > config: x86_64-randconfig-x015-201543 (attached as .config) > > > > reproduce: > > > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree > > > > make ARCH=x86_64 > > > > > > > > All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > > > > > In file included from include/uapi/linux/stddef.h:1:0, > > > > from include/linux/stddef.h:4, > > > > from include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:4, > > > > from include/uapi/linux/types.h:13, > > > > from include/linux/types.h:5, > > > > from include/linux/list.h:4, > > > > from include/linux/module.h:9, > > > > from drivers/acpi/osl.c:26: > > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c: In function 'acpi_os_wait_events_complete': > > > > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1183:6: error: implicit declaration of > > > > >> function > > > > 'acpi_sci_irq_valid' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > > if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) > > > > ^ > > > > include/linux/compiler.h:147:28: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if' > > > > if (__builtin_constant_p((cond)) ? !!(cond) : \ > > > > ^ > > > > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1183:2: note: in expansion of macro 'if' > > > > if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) > > > > ^ > > > > >> drivers/acpi/osl.c:1184:23: error: 'acpi_sci_irq' undeclared > > > > >> (first use in this > > > > function) > > > > synchronize_hardirq(acpi_sci_irq); > > > > ^ > > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c:1184:23: note: each undeclared identifier is > > > > reported only once for each function it appears in > > > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > > > > > > > > vim +/acpi_sci_irq_valid +1183 drivers/acpi/osl.c > > > > > > > > 1177 void acpi_os_wait_events_complete(void) > > > > 1178 { > > > > 1179 /* > > > > 1180 * Make sure the GPE handler or the fixed event > > handler is > > > > not used > > > > 1181 * on another CPU after removal. > > > > 1182 */ > > > > > 1183 if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) > > > > > 1184 synchronize_hardirq(acpi_sci_irq); > > > > 1185 flush_workqueue(kacpid_wq); > > > > 1186 flush_workqueue(kacpi_notify_wq); > > > > 1187 } > > > > > > > > --- > > > > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center > > > > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the > > body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at > > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/drivers/acpi/osl.c index 64df9d4..45243a7 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c @@ -1184,8 +1184,8 @@ void acpi_os_wait_events_complete(void) * Make sure the GPE handler or the fixed event handler is not used * on another CPU after removal. */ - if (acpi_irq_handler) - synchronize_hardirq(acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt); + if (acpi_sci_irq_valid()) + synchronize_hardirq(acpi_sci_irq); flush_workqueue(kacpid_wq); flush_workqueue(kacpi_notify_wq); }