Hi Al,
Today's linux-next build (x86_64_allmodconfig) produced this warning:
fs/logfs/inode.c:399: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
Introduced by commit bc39e28236344af617473df80abb7de43176511e ("pass
writeback_control to ->write_inode") from the vfs tree interacting with
commit 5db53f3e80dee2d9dff5e534f9e9fe1db17c9936 ("[LogFS] add new flash
file system") from the logfs tree.
This will need a fixup patch (see below) which I can carry in the
linux-next tree. There may, of course, be a better fix (which I can
carry if someone sends it to me).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:14:59 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] logfs: fixup for write_inode API change
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
---
fs/logfs/inode.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/logfs/inode.c b/fs/logfs/inode.c
index 6d08b37..36308af 100644
--- a/fs/logfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/logfs/inode.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
#include "logfs.h"
#include <linux/writeback.h>
#include <linux/backing-dev.h>
+#include <linux/writeback.h>
/*
* How soon to reuse old inode numbers? LogFS doesn't store deleted inodes
@@ -282,7 +283,7 @@ struct inode *logfs_read_meta_inode(struct super_block *sb, u64 ino)
return inode;
}
-static int logfs_write_inode(struct inode *inode, int do_sync)
+static int logfs_write_inode(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_control *wbc)
{
int ret;
long flags = WF_LOCK;
--
1.6.6
On Mon, 18 January 2010 13:11:28 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next build (x86_64_allmodconfig) produced this warning:
>
> fs/logfs/inode.c:399: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
>
> Introduced by commit bc39e28236344af617473df80abb7de43176511e ("pass
> writeback_control to ->write_inode") from the vfs tree interacting with
> commit 5db53f3e80dee2d9dff5e534f9e9fe1db17c9936 ("[LogFS] add new flash
> file system") from the logfs tree.
>
> This will need a fixup patch (see below) which I can carry in the
> linux-next tree. There may, of course, be a better fix (which I can
> carry if someone sends it to me).
Looks good enough for me for now. Next week, after returning from
vacation, I'll have a closer look and update the logfs tree.
Thank you, Stephen!
Jörn
--
Joern's library part 7:
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/neworl/full_papers/mckusick.a
Hi Jörn,
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:34:15 +0100 Jörn Engel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Looks good enough for me for now. Next week, after returning from
> vacation, I'll have a closer look and update the logfs tree.
OK, thanks.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/