Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220715140259.205ef267@canb.auug.org.au> <YtDoqhuAt6Sv6qgV@ZenIV>
 <5614fbc0-509a-6341-bef2-8857f4fe610e@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <5614fbc0-509a-6341-bef2-8857f4fe610e@kernel.dk>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jul 2022 10:33:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjzpt7T+iuOd9pDR4Mkb+2SCoxi3H2uL+DTGTX+Ur5cGw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 7:43 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 7/14/22 10:10 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > I suspect that it would be a good idea to slap
> > #define no_llseek NULL
> > into include/linux/fs.h for the merge window, then remove it (and all
> > stray no_llseek initializers) at -rc1.  Linus, would you be OK with
> > that approach?
>
> Not Linus, but I think that's a good idea as it'll reduce the pain for
> any new users added in other trees.

Yeah, sounds fine to me too.

                   Linus