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

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:24:20 +1000

Hi all,

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 23:07:44 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> After merging the akpm tree, today's linux-next build (sparc defconfig)
> failed like this:
> 
> In file included from arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable.h:7:0,
>                  from include/linux/pgtable.h:6,
>                  from include/linux/mm.h:33,
>                  from include/linux/ring_buffer.h:5,
>                  from include/linux/trace_events.h:6,
>                  from include/trace/syscall.h:7,
>                  from include/linux/syscalls.h:87,
>                  from fs/io_uring.c:45:
> arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h: In function 'pud_pgtable':
> arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h:157:10: warning: return makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
>    return ~0;
>           ^
> 
> and many, many more like this.
> 
> This is an error due to (part of) the tree being built with -Werror
> 
> Caused by commit
> 
>   8aef6710db27 ("mm: rename pud_page_vaddr to pud_pgtable and make it return pmd_t *")
> 
> I have applied the following hack fix for today.
> 
> From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 22:51:50 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] mm: rename pud_page_vaddr to pud_pgtable and make it return pmd_t * fix
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h
> index 1e6b55425f3d..ffccfe3b22ed 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h
> +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h
> @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ static inline unsigned long pmd_page_vaddr(pmd_t pmd)
>  static inline pmd_t *pud_pgtable(pud_t pud)
>  {
>  	if (srmmu_device_memory(pud_val(pud))) {
> -		return ~0;
> +		return (pmd_t *)~0;
>  	} else {
>  		unsigned long v = pud_val(pud) & SRMMU_PTD_PMASK;
>  		return (pmd_t *)__nocache_va(v << 4);
> -- 
> 2.30.2

Did this get missed in the latest mmotm update?  I still have to apply it ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell