Hi all,
Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
fs/ceph/addr.c: In function 'ceph_set_page_dirty':
fs/ceph/addr.c:105: error: 'BDI_RECLAIMABLE' undeclared (first use in this function)
Commit 69f0302c4bd28846c3251e25976a2336cd6a6e6f ("VM: Split out the
accounting of unstable writes from BDI_RECLAIMABLE") from the nfs tree
interacts with commit 1d3576fd10f0d7a104204267b81cf84a07028dad ("ceph:
address space operations") from the ceph tree.
I applied the following patch for today (I am not sure it is correct) and
will keep it as a merge fixup as necessary.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:04:27 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] ceph: update for BDI_RECLAIMABLE change
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
---
fs/ceph/addr.c | 3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ceph/addr.c b/fs/ceph/addr.c
index bf53581..eab46b0 100644
--- a/fs/ceph/addr.c
+++ b/fs/ceph/addr.c
@@ -101,8 +101,7 @@ static int ceph_set_page_dirty(struct page *page)
if (mapping_cap_account_dirty(mapping)) {
__inc_zone_page_state(page, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
- __inc_bdi_stat(mapping->backing_dev_info,
- BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
+ __inc_bdi_stat(mapping->backing_dev_info, BDI_DIRTY);
task_io_account_write(PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
}
radix_tree_tag_set(&mapping->page_tree,
--
1.6.5.7
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 11:11 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> fs/ceph/addr.c: In function 'ceph_set_page_dirty':
> fs/ceph/addr.c:105: error: 'BDI_RECLAIMABLE' undeclared (first use in this function)
>
> Commit 69f0302c4bd28846c3251e25976a2336cd6a6e6f ("VM: Split out the
> accounting of unstable writes from BDI_RECLAIMABLE") from the nfs tree
> interacts with commit 1d3576fd10f0d7a104204267b81cf84a07028dad ("ceph:
> address space operations") from the ceph tree.
>
> I applied the following patch for today (I am not sure it is correct) and
> will keep it as a merge fixup as necessary.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:04:27 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] ceph: update for BDI_RECLAIMABLE change
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/ceph/addr.c | 3 +--
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/addr.c b/fs/ceph/addr.c
> index bf53581..eab46b0 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/addr.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/addr.c
> @@ -101,8 +101,7 @@ static int ceph_set_page_dirty(struct page *page)
>
> if (mapping_cap_account_dirty(mapping)) {
> __inc_zone_page_state(page, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> - __inc_bdi_stat(mapping->backing_dev_info,
> - BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> + __inc_bdi_stat(mapping->backing_dev_info, BDI_DIRTY);
> task_io_account_write(PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
> }
> radix_tree_tag_set(&mapping->page_tree,
The patch itself looks correct to me.
How would you like me to proceed? Should I revert the VM changes from
the NFS linux-next tree, or would you be OK with keeping the above patch
for now?
Cheers
Trond
Hi Trond,
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:18:33 -0500 Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The patch itself looks correct to me.
Thanks for the confirmation.
> How would you like me to proceed? Should I revert the VM changes from
> the NFS linux-next tree, or would you be OK with keeping the above patch
> for now?
I am OK with keeping the patch - we just need to remember it during the
next merge window.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Trond,
>
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:18:33 -0500 Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The patch itself looks correct to me.
>
> Thanks for the confirmation.
Yep, looks good.
> > How would you like me to proceed? Should I revert the VM changes from
> > the NFS linux-next tree, or would you be OK with keeping the above patch
> > for now?
>
> I am OK with keeping the patch - we just need to remember it during the
> next merge window.
Okay. I can move it to my tree as well, where I assume it'll need to be
when it comes time to merge.
Thanks-
sage
Hi Sage,
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:51:45 -0800 (PST) Sage Weil <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Okay. I can move it to my tree as well, where I assume it'll need to be
> when it comes time to merge.
Well, that depends on the order that the two trees get merged into Linus'
tree. If you get in first, then Trond will have to fix up his tree
before merging (or get Linus to apply my patch as a merge fixup).
One possible thing you could do is to apply both the nfs tree patch and
my patch to your tree (or merge the nfs tree into your tree and apply the
merge fixup), but that will cause a problem if the patch is updated in
the nfs tree (or the nfs tree rebases) ...
So the easiest thing (at leas at this early stage of the development
cycle) is for me to keep applying the merge fixup to my tree when I merge
the later of your two trees into linux-next (this is an automated
process). Maybe in a few weeks we might do something different.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/