On 5/17/21 6:55 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> writes:

On 5/17/21 1:40 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
On 5/15/21 10:05 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:13:19AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:

...

   extern void radix__local_flush_all_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/tlbflush.h 
b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/tlbflush.h
index 215973b4cb26..f9f8a3a264f7 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/tlbflush.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/tlbflush.h
@@ -45,13 +45,30 @@ static inline void tlbiel_all_lpid(bool radix)
           hash__tlbiel_all(TLB_INVAL_SCOPE_LPID);
   }
+static inline void flush_pmd_tlb_pwc_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
                   ^^^^
+                       unsigned long start,
+                       unsigned long end,
+                       bool flush_pwc)
+{
+    if (radix_enabled())
+        return radix__flush_pmd_tlb_range(vma, start, end, flush_pwc);
+    return hash__flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end);
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

+}

In this specific case we won't have  build errors because,

static inline void hash__flush_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
                       unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{


Sorry, you completely lost me.

Building parisc:allnoconfig ... failed
--------------
Error log:
In file included from arch/parisc/include/asm/cacheflush.h:7,
                   from include/linux/highmem.h:12,
                   from include/linux/pagemap.h:11,
                   from include/linux/ksm.h:13,
                   from mm/mremap.c:14:
mm/mremap.c: In function 'flush_pte_tlb_pwc_range':
arch/parisc/include/asm/tlbflush.h:20:2: error: 'return' with a value, in 
function returning void

As replied here
https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/8eedb441-a612-1ec8-8bf7-b40184de9...@linux.ibm.com/

That was the generic header change in the patch. I was commenting about the
ppc64 specific change causing build failures.


Ah, sorry. I wasn't aware that the following is valid C code

void f1()
{
    return f2();
    ^^^^^^
}

as long as f2() is void as well. Confusing, but we live and learn.

Guenter

Reply via email to