Hi Christian,

kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:

[auto build test WARNING on 6628e7d4c6b25c8d18f1345e3a20d21829aae7e4]

url:    
https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Christian-Brauner/alloc_tag-don-t-remove-proc-allocinfo-under-the-codetag-module-lock/20261104-200606
base:   6628e7d4c6b25c8d18f1345e3a20d21829aae7e4
patch link:    
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20261104-work-procfs-bugfixes-v2-1-021c84d852e0%40kernel.org
patch subject: [PATCH RESEND v2 01/51] alloc_tag: don't remove /proc/allocinfo 
under the codetag module lock
config: sh-randconfig-1001-20261105 
(https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20261105/[email protected]/config)
compiler: sh4-linux-gcc (GCC) 16.2.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): 
(https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20261105/[email protected]/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
| Closes: 
https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/[email protected]/

All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):

>> mm/alloc_tag.c:620:13: warning: 'shutdown_mem_profiling_async' defined but 
>> not used [-Wunused-function]
     620 | static void shutdown_mem_profiling_async(void)
         |             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


vim +/shutdown_mem_profiling_async +620 mm/alloc_tag.c

   613  
   614  /*
   615   * A module's tags are reserved with the codetag module lock held for
   616   * writing, and a reader of /proc/allocinfo takes that lock with the 
entry
   617   * pinned. Removing the entry there would wait for that reader for 
good, so
   618   * let a work item do it.
   619   */
 > 620  static void shutdown_mem_profiling_async(void)
   621  {
   622          if (!mem_profiling_support)
   623                  return;
   624          shutdown_mem_profiling(false);
   625          schedule_work(&remove_allocinfo_work);
   626  }
   627  

--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

Reply via email to