Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752401AbdFMKyO (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:54:14 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:43855 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751895AbdFMKyM (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:54:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:54:09 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Jens Axboe , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Hellwig , Sebastian Ott Subject: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree Message-ID: <20170613205409.4b7e06f9@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2099 Lines: 76 Hi Jall, After merging the block tree, today's linux-next build (s390x s390-defconfig) failed like this: drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c:293:10: error: 'BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY' undeclared (first use in this function) drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c:327:9: error: 'BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_OK' undeclared (first use in this function) Caused by commit fc17b6534eb8 ("blk-mq: switch ->queue_rq return value to blk_status_t") interacting with commit 12d907626539 ("s390/scm: convert to blk-mq") from the s390 tree. Is the following the correct merge fixup? From: Stephen Rothwell Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:51:32 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] s390: fix up for "blk-mq: switch ->queue_rq return value to blk_status_t" Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell --- drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c index 42018a20f2b7..2cd6123c8f18 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c +++ b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, spin_lock(&sq->lock); if (!scm_permit_request(bdev, req)) { spin_unlock(&sq->lock); - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY; + return BLK_STS_RESOURCE; } scmrq = sq->scmrq; @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, if (!scmrq) { SCM_LOG(5, "no request"); spin_unlock(&sq->lock); - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY; + return BLK_STS_RESOURCE; } scm_request_init(bdev, scmrq); sq->scmrq = scmrq; @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, sq->scmrq = NULL; spin_unlock(&sq->lock); - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY; + return BLK_STS_RESOURCE; } blk_mq_start_request(req); @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, sq->scmrq = NULL; } spin_unlock(&sq->lock); - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_OK; + return BLK_STS_OK; } static int scm_blk_init_hctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, void *data, -- 2.11.0 -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell