Hi Al,
After merging the vfs tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allnoconfig)
failed like this:
fs/super.c: In function 'do_thaw_all_callback':
fs/super.c:942:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'emergency_thaw_bdev'; did you mean 'emergency_remount'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
emergency_thaw_bdev(sb);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
emergency_remount
Caused by commit
92afc556e622 ("buffer.c: call thaw_super during emergency thaw")
I have reverted that commit for today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 05:06:27PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> After merging the vfs tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allnoconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> fs/super.c: In function 'do_thaw_all_callback':
> fs/super.c:942:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'emergency_thaw_bdev'; did you mean 'emergency_remount'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> emergency_thaw_bdev(sb);
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> emergency_remount
>
> Caused by commit
>
> 92afc556e622 ("buffer.c: call thaw_super during emergency thaw")
>
> I have reverted that commit for today.
>
Oops, did not test with CONFIG_BLOCK disabled. The sysrq func itself is guarded
with it so imho the right fixup is to do the same thing:
diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index 5fa9a8d..86b5575 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -935,6 +935,7 @@ void emergency_remount(void)
}
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
static void do_thaw_all_callback(struct super_block *sb)
{
down_write(&sb->s_umount);
@@ -968,6 +969,7 @@ void emergency_thaw_all(void)
schedule_work(work);
}
}
+#endif
/*
* Unnamed block devices are dummy devices used by virtual
--
Mateusz Guzik
Hi Al,
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:06:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> After merging the vfs tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allnoconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> fs/super.c: In function 'do_thaw_all_callback':
> fs/super.c:942:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'emergency_thaw_bdev'; did you mean 'emergency_remount'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> emergency_thaw_bdev(sb);
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> emergency_remount
>
> Caused by commit
>
> 92afc556e622 ("buffer.c: call thaw_super during emergency thaw")
>
> I have reverted that commit for today.
I am still doing that revert ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 12:26:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:06:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > After merging the vfs tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allnoconfig)
> > failed like this:
> >
> > fs/super.c: In function 'do_thaw_all_callback':
> > fs/super.c:942:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'emergency_thaw_bdev'; did you mean 'emergency_remount'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > emergency_thaw_bdev(sb);
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > emergency_remount
> >
> > Caused by commit
> >
> > 92afc556e622 ("buffer.c: call thaw_super during emergency thaw")
> >
> > I have reverted that commit for today.
>
> I am still doing that revert ...
That's interesting, seeing that this commit is *not* in #for-next and
08fdc8a0138a should not have that problem...
Hi Al,
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 03:19:56 +0100 Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Caused by commit
> > >
> > > 92afc556e622 ("buffer.c: call thaw_super during emergency thaw")
> > >
> > > I have reverted that commit for today.
> >
> > I am still doing that revert ...
>
> That's interesting, seeing that this commit is *not* in #for-next and
> 08fdc8a0138a should not have that problem...
I do the revert by applying a reverse patch (initially generated by a
"git revert"). That reverse patch still applies cleanly, so I have no
easy way to tell that this problem has been fixed (except by trying
without the reverse patch each day - which would add a significant cost
to my work as that patch touches linux/fs.h).
Anyway, thanks for letting me know, I will remove the reverse patch
from tomorrow.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell