Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree
To:     Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
References: <20200312135457.6891749e@canb.auug.org.au>
 <CAGnkfhztbmpP0=KT-iNbkUGKerhX04ENFsexA4_2cP_RUs0Png@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <baefdc44-d7cb-4e9e-c46c-b37012cfc40d@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 07:07:17 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGnkfhztbmpP0=KT-iNbkUGKerhX04ENFsexA4_2cP_RUs0Png@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 3/12/20 4:12 AM, Matteo Croce wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:55 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After merging the block tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
>> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>>
>> In file included from fs/erofs/xattr.h:10,
>>                  from fs/erofs/inode.c:7:
>> fs/erofs/inode.c: In function 'erofs_read_inode':
>> fs/erofs/internal.h:197:31: error: 'PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'PA_SECTION_SHIFT'?
>>   197 | #define LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT
>>       |                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> fs/erofs/inode.c:122:30: note: in expansion of macro 'LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK'
>>   122 |   inode->i_blocks = nblks << LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK;
>>       |                              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> fs/erofs/internal.h:197:31: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
>>   197 | #define LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT
>>       |                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> fs/erofs/inode.c:122:30: note: in expansion of macro 'LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK'
>>   122 |   inode->i_blocks = nblks << LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK;
>>       |                              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> In file included from fs/erofs/data.c:7:
>> fs/erofs/data.c: In function 'erofs_read_raw_page':
>> fs/erofs/internal.h:197:31: error: 'PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'PA_SECTION_SHIFT'?
>>   197 | #define LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT
>>       |                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> fs/erofs/data.c:226:4: note: in expansion of macro 'LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK'
>>   226 |    LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK;
>>       |    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> fs/erofs/internal.h:197:31: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
>>   197 | #define LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT
>>       |                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> fs/erofs/data.c:226:4: note: in expansion of macro 'LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK'
>>   226 |    LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK;
>>       |    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> fs/erofs/data.c: In function 'erofs_bmap':
>> fs/erofs/internal.h:197:31: error: 'PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'PA_SECTION_SHIFT'?
>>   197 | #define LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT
>>       |                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> fs/erofs/data.c:351:16: note: in expansion of macro 'LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK'
>>   351 |   if (block >> LOG_SECTORS_PER_BLOCK >= blks)
>>       |                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Caused by commit
>>
>>   61c7d3d5e015 ("block: refactor duplicated macros")
>>
>> I have used the block tree from next-20200311 for today.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I was building a kernel without erofs. Just including
> include/linux/blkdev.h will fix it, should I amend the
> patch or send a fix?

I'll drop the patch. I was worried about the patch to begin with,
something like this really should be done through cocinelle so there's
less concern of a stupid mistake.

On top of that, somewhat miffed that you'd have a v3 of a patch, yet
haven't bothered to even _compile_ the parts you touch. That's
inexcusable.

-- 
Jens Axboe