Hi,
I notice a powerpc[64?] build regression on Bugzilla [1]. Quoting from it:
CC arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.s
In file included from ./include/linux/gfp.h:7,
from ./include/linux/xarray.h:15,
from ./include/linux/list_lru.h:14,
from ./include/linux/fs.h:13,
from ./include/linux/compat.h:17,
from arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:12:
./include/linux/mmzone.h:1735:2: error: #error Allocator MAX_ORDER exceeds SECTION_SIZE
1735 | #error Allocator MAX_ORDER exceeds SECTION_SIZE
| ^~~~~
make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:114: arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1
From: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> Date: 2023-05-24 11:48:31
On 24 May 2023, at 6:58, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
Hi,
I notice a powerpc[64?] build regression on Bugzilla [1]. Quoting from it:
quoted
CC arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.s
In file included from ./include/linux/gfp.h:7,
from ./include/linux/xarray.h:15,
from ./include/linux/list_lru.h:14,
from ./include/linux/fs.h:13,
from ./include/linux/compat.h:17,
from arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:12:
./include/linux/mmzone.h:1735:2: error: #error Allocator MAX_ORDER exceeds SECTION_SIZE
1735 | #error Allocator MAX_ORDER exceeds SECTION_SIZE
| ^~~~~
make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:114: arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1
By checking the config file from the bugzilla, ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER is set to 9,
(SECTION_SIZE is 24 and 64KB page is used, so 9+16=25>24) but it should be 8
after recent MAX_ORDER changes. I guess the user was using an old config file.
Changing ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER to 8 in the config should fix the issue.
Anyway, I'm adding it to regzbot:
#regzbot introduced: 23baf831a32c04f https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217477
#regzbot title: Allocator MAX_ORDER exceeds SECTION_SIZE caused by MAX_ORDER redefinition
From bugzilla [1], the reporter had successfully tried the proposed
kernel config fix, so:
#regzbot resolve: reducing CONFIG_ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER to 8 resolves the regression
Thanks for all who participates in this regression report!
[1]: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217477#c8
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
#regzbot title: Allocator MAX_ORDER exceeds SECTION_SIZE caused by
MAX_ORDER redefinition
quoted
From bugzilla [1], the reporter had successfully tried the proposed
kernel config fix, so:
#regzbot resolve: reducing CONFIG_ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER to 8 resolves the
regression
Thanks for all who participates in this regression report!
[1]: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217477#c8
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post
Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top
(IOW, I have no idea what you're referring to. Please stop top-posting;
reply inline with appropriate context instead.)
Also, don't send HTML emails as many mailing lists (including LKML)
don't like it.
Thanks.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Date: 2023-05-24 15:03:45
Bagas Sanjaya [off-list ref] writes:
On 5/24/23 17:58, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
quoted
Anyway, I'm adding it to regzbot:
#regzbot introduced: 23baf831a32c04f https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217477
#regzbot title: Allocator MAX_ORDER exceeds SECTION_SIZE caused by MAX_ORDER redefinition
From bugzilla [1], the reporter had successfully tried the proposed
kernel config fix, so:
#regzbot resolve: reducing CONFIG_ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER to 8 resolves the regression
#regzbot title: Allocator MAX_ORDER exceeds SECTION_SIZE caused by
MAX_ORDER redefinition
quoted
quoted
From bugzilla [1], the reporter had successfully tried the proposed
kernel config fix, so:
#regzbot resolve: reducing CONFIG_ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER to 8 resolves the