From: Mark Fasheh Subject: Re: [stable] Linux 2.6.28.8 (ocfs2 build failure) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:05:39 -0700 Message-ID: <20090324190539.GG13065@wotan.suse.de> References: <20090317012028.GA32410@kroah.com> <49C00787.6060401@oracle.com> <20090317205518.GA4442@kroah.com> <49C00FE9.9040407@oracle.com> <20090320221750.GA32416@kroah.com> <20090323024404.GA14082@mit.edu> Reply-To: Mark Fasheh Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Theodore Tso , Greg KH , Randy Dunlap , Jan Kara , Greg KH , Andrew Morton Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:42791 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754491AbZCXTYj (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:24:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090323024404.GA14082@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:44:04PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:17:50PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > I tracked this down to commit 54dc90 in the 2.6.28.8 tree. > > > > I've included it below. Jan and Ted, any ideas on how to fix this > > error? > > 2.6.29 dropped the CONFIG_OCFS2_COMPAT_JBD option; if you enable it, > causes a compile failure in 2.6.28.8. This should fix it... > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_jbd_compat.h b/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_jbd_compat.h > index b91c78f..268949b 100644 > --- a/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_jbd_compat.h > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_jbd_compat.h > @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ static inline int jbd2_journal_file_inode(handle_t *handle, > return 0; > } > > -static inline int jbd2_journal_begin_ordered_truncate(struct jbd2_inode *inode, > +static inline int jbd2_journal_begin_ordered_truncate(journal_t *journal, > + struct jbd2_inode *inode, > loff_t new_size) > { > return 0; > > > Should I just revert this from the 2.6.28 tree? Or does no one really > > care about ocfs2 in the stable tree? > > I'm not sure how much people will care about CONFIG_OCFS2_COMPAT_JBD, > given that it disappears in 2.6.29, but the above patch should fix > things. CONFIG_OCFS2_COMPAT_JBD is off by default, and existed for a really short time so I don't think it'll matter much if it's broken (obviously fixing it is better). Btw, people definitely use Ocfs2 in the stable tree - I've submitted Ocfs2 patches to stable in the past. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh