On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 09:28:33AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Wednesday 26 March 2025 22:00:02 Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 09:59:19PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > On Wednesday 26 March 2025 08:33:32 Jeff Johnson wrote: > > > > On 3/26/2025 8:09 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > > Add dummy definition for nfsd_file in both nfslocalio.c and localio.c > > > > > so older gcc (e.g. EL8's 8.5.0) can be used. Older gcc causes RCU > > > > > code (rcu_dereference and rcu_access_pointer) to dereference what > > > > > should just be an opaque pointer with its use of typeof. > > > > > > > > > > So without the dummy definition compiling with older gcc fails. > > > > > > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zsyhco1OrOI_uSbd@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > Fixes: 55a9742d02eff ("nfs: cache all open LOCALIO nfsd_file(s) in client") > > > > > > As this change is fixing compile error, should not be there also cc: stable line? > > > > Any commit with a Fixes: tag will automatically be picked up by > > stable@ once it is merged. An explicit cc: sttable@ would be > > redundant. > > From my experience, when the backporting of commit with both Fixes:+Cc: > fails then the committer of the patch and also other is informed by > robot email. If there is only Fixes: without Cc: then people are not > informed. > > So I used the Fixes:+Cc: for such build issues or important issues to > ensure that the change is really backported. If a Fixes commit isn't able to be easily backported then mail is sent giving notice to the author. That has always been sufficient for anything I have authored. > > > > > > > > I saw this issue using crosstools/gcc-13.3.0-nolibc and this patch fixes it. > > > > > > So maybe the commit message can be adjusted, so it does not say only > > > "older gcc"? > > > > I don't see the need to list all compilers, I documented the compiler > > that motivated my fix. Fact that it applicable for > > crosstools/gcc-13.3.0-nolibc (which I don't have context for what it > > is.. but if this commit is needed for it then it is a suspect "new" > > compiler). > > My impression was that the commit is fixing just the compilation with > old gcc versions. But it seems that also new are affected. That is why I > suggested to adjust it, so it would be clear that it applies for new gcc > versions too. Really not sure why you're being so pedantic. I submitted what I developed as a fix for my needs with an old gcc (from EL8) and so I submitted what I had. We don't need to impose every compiler be covered in a commit header (especially when the new case occurred 4 months later). crosstools/gcc-13.3.0-nolibc is not something I'm going to hunt down and pick apart to prove that it is using old compiler technology, but I'm inclined to think it is. Mike
