Re: [-next v2 3/4] cpuset: separate tmpmasks and cpuset allocation logic

[Waiman Long]

On 8/14/25 8:44 PM, Chen Ridong wrote:
> On 2025/8/14 5:28, kernel test robot wrote:
> > Hi Chen,
> >
> > kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
> >
> > [auto build test WARNING on tj-cgroup/for-next]
> > [also build test WARNING on linus/master v6.17-rc1 next-20250813]
> > [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> > https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
> >
> > url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Chen-Ridong/cpuset-remove-redundant-CS_ONLINE-flag/20250813-164651
> > base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/cgroup.git for-next
> > patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250813082904.1091651-4-chenridong%40huaweicloud.com
> > patch subject: [-next v2 3/4] cpuset: separate tmpmasks and cpuset allocation logic
> > config: x86_64-defconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250814/202508140524.S2O4D57k-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config)
> > compiler: gcc-11 (Debian 11.3.0-12) 11.3.0
> > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250814/202508140524.S2O4D57k-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/202508140524.S2O4D57k-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> > > > Warning: kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c:422 function parameter 'pmasks' not described in 'alloc_cpumasks'
> Hi all,
>
> Thank you for the warning about the comment issue - I will fix it in the next version.
>
> I will be appreciate if you can review this patch. If you have any feedback, I can update the entire
> series together.
Sorry for not responding to this patch. It looked reasonable to me. I 
did miss the error in the comment though. Fortunately it was caught by 
the test robot.

Cheers,
Longman