From: Simon Schuster <schuster.si...@siemens-energy.com>

Since commit edd3cb05c00a ("copy_process: pass clone_flags as u64 across
calltree") the task_newtask trace event exposes clone_flags as u64 to
its callbacks.

However, ltl_monitor was not adapted, resulting in a faulty callback.
This also resulted in an lkp build warning due to
-Wincompatible-pointer-types.

Fixes: edd3cb05c00a ("copy_process: pass clone_flags as u64 across calltree")
Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250904113334.18822...@canb.auug.org.au/
Reported-by: kernel test robot <l...@intel.com>
Closes: 
https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202509040134.bqvbm7ja-...@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Simon Schuster <schuster.si...@siemens-energy.com>
---
I did further search for other in-tree users of the task_newtask
callback, but the trace macros make it a bit harder. Yet, as far as I
could see, there are none, so this patch hopefully resolves the problem
for good. The other matches all relate to "tp_btf/task_newtask", which
seems to be unaffected.

With this patch, ARCH=S390 allmodconfig -- that originally tripped the
LKP builds -- now builds without further -Wincompatible-pointer-types
warnings.

Sorry for causing this trouble, and thanks to Stephen Rothwell for
testing/reporting.
---
 include/rv/ltl_monitor.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h b/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h
index 67031a774e3d..5368cf5fd623 100644
--- a/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h
+++ b/include/rv/ltl_monitor.h
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static void ltl_task_init(struct task_struct *task, bool 
task_creation)
        ltl_atoms_fetch(task, mon);
 }
 
-static void handle_task_newtask(void *data, struct task_struct *task, unsigned 
long flags)
+static void handle_task_newtask(void *data, struct task_struct *task, u64 
flags)
 {
        ltl_task_init(task, true);
 }

---
base-commit: edd3cb05c00a040dc72bed20b14b5ba865188bce
change-id: 20250904-trace-task-newtask-fix-callbacks-b158634c59da

Best regards,
-- 
Simon Schuster <schuster.si...@siemens-energy.com>



Reply via email to