Yuquan Wang wrote: > > > [add loongarch folks, cc linux-cxl ] > > > > kernel test robot wrote: > > > Hi Yuquan, > > > > > > kernel test robot noticed the following build errors: > > > > > > [auto build test ERROR on akpm-mm/mm-everything] > > > > > > url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Yuquan-Wang/mm-numa_memblks-introduce-numa_add_reserved_memblk/20250328-172428 > > > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git mm-everything > > > patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250328092132.2695299-1-wangyuquan1236%40phytium.com.cn > > > patch subject: [PATCH v2] mm: numa_memblks: introduce numa_add_reserved_memblk > > > config: loongarch-randconfig-002-20250328 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250328/202503282026.QNaOAK79-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config) > > > compiler: loongarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0 > > > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250328/202503282026.QNaOAK79-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/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 <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202503282026.QNaOAK79-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > > > In file included from include/linux/build_bug.h:5, > > > from include/linux/container_of.h:5, > > > from include/linux/list.h:5, > > > from include/linux/module.h:12, > > > from drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c:10: > > > drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c: In function 'acpi_parse_cfmws': > > > >> drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c:461:13: error: implicit declaration of function 'numa_add_reserved_memblk' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] > > > 461 | if (numa_add_reserved_memblk(node, start, end) < 0) { > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > So it looks like loongarch was left out of the numa_memblks conversion: > > 87482708210f ("mm: introduce numa_memblks") > > > > I think the update needed is something like this (untested): > > > > diff --git a/arch/loongarch/Kconfig b/arch/loongarch/Kconfig > > index 2b8bd27a852f..cac16c827159 100644 > > --- a/arch/loongarch/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/loongarch/Kconfig > > @@ -183,6 +183,7 @@ config LOONGARCH > > select MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA if MODULES > > select NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK > > select NEED_PER_CPU_PAGE_FIRST_CHUNK > > + select NUMA_MEMBLKS > > select OF > > select OF_EARLY_FLATTREE > > select PCI > > diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/numa.h b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/numa.h > > index b5f9de9f102e..bbf9f70bd25f 100644 > > --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/numa.h > > +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/numa.h > > @@ -22,20 +22,6 @@ extern int numa_off; > > extern s16 __cpuid_to_node[CONFIG_NR_CPUS]; > > extern nodemask_t numa_nodes_parsed __initdata; > > > > -struct numa_memblk { > > - u64 start; > > - u64 end; > > - int nid; > > -}; > > - > > -#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES*2) > > -struct numa_meminfo { > > - int nr_blks; > > - struct numa_memblk blk[NR_NODE_MEMBLKS]; > > -}; > > - > > -extern int __init numa_add_memblk(int nodeid, u64 start, u64 end); > > - > > extern void __init early_numa_add_cpu(int cpuid, s16 node); > > extern void numa_add_cpu(unsigned int cpu); > > extern void numa_remove_cpu(unsigned int cpu); > > diff --git a/arch/loongarch/kernel/numa.c b/arch/loongarch/kernel/numa.c > > index 84fe7f854820..57b21082e893 100644 > > --- a/arch/loongarch/kernel/numa.c > > +++ b/arch/loongarch/kernel/numa.c > > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ > > #include <linux/efi.h> > > #include <linux/irq.h> > > #include <linux/pci.h> > > +#include <linux/numa_memblks.h> > > #include <asm/bootinfo.h> > > #include <asm/loongson.h> > > #include <asm/numa.h> > > > > Could someone from the loongarch side propose the fixups needed here so > > Yuquan can land this patch? > > Hi, Dan > > Should I wait for Loongarch folks's replies or draft a new patch for Loongarch > to introduce numa_memblks according to your suggested code? I would say go ahead and introduce the suggested changes. I think the risk is low that copying what is done for numa_add_memblk() will break something, and they can always jump in to fix that up if the worst case happens.
