Hi Jocelyn,

kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:

[auto build test WARNING on 8befe8fa5a4e4b30787b17e078d9d7b5cb92ea19]

url:    
https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Jocelyn-Falempe/drm-panic-Squash-of-pending-series/20240816-205859
base:   8befe8fa5a4e4b30787b17e078d9d7b5cb92ea19
patch link:    
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240816125612.1003295-4-jfalempe%40redhat.com
patch subject: [PATCH v2 3/5] drm/log: Introduce a new boot logger to draw the 
kmsg on the screen
config: arm-randconfig-r121-20240818 
(https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240818/202408181614.aar0qm24-...@intel.com/config)
compiler: arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc (GCC) 14.1.0
reproduce: 
(https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240818/202408181614.aar0qm24-...@intel.com/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 <l...@intel.com>
| Closes: 
https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202408181614.aar0qm24-...@intel.com/

sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_log.c:66:17: sparse: sparse: symbol 'drm_log_buf' was 
>> not declared. Should it be static?
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_log.c:384:1: sparse: sparse: symbol 'drm_log_work' was 
>> not declared. Should it be static?
   drivers/gpu/drm/drm_log.c: note: in included file (through 
include/linux/rculist.h, include/linux/console.h):
   include/linux/list.h:83:21: sparse: sparse: self-comparison always evaluates 
to true

vim +/drm_log_buf +66 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_log.c

    59  
    60  /*
    61   * A circular buffer, with the last kmsg logs to print.
    62   * 8K is more than what can be drawn on most monitors.
    63   */
    64  #define CIRC_BUF_SIZE   (1 << 13)
    65  #define CIRC_BUF_MASK   (CIRC_BUF_SIZE - 1)
  > 66  struct circ_buf drm_log_buf;
    67  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(drm_log_writer_lock);
    68  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(drm_log_reader_lock);
    69  

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

Reply via email to