[Top] [All Lists]

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the xfs tree

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the xfs tree
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 13:36:14 -0500
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120510183245.GL3963@xxxxxxx>
References: <20120510130134.0efffc5ba1f3a80c614e8f29@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120510183245.GL3963@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 05/10/12 13:32, Ben Myers wrote:

Signed-off-by: Ben Myers<bpm@xxxxxxx>

Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c
--- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c
+++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c
@@ -47,8 +47,6 @@ STATIC int xfs_alloc_ag_vextent_near(xfs
  STATIC int xfs_alloc_ag_vextent_size(xfs_alloc_arg_t *);
  STATIC int xfs_alloc_ag_vextent_small(xfs_alloc_arg_t *,
                xfs_btree_cur_t *, xfs_agblock_t *, xfs_extlen_t *, int *);
-STATIC void xfs_extent_busy_trim(struct xfs_alloc_arg *,
-               xfs_agblock_t, xfs_extlen_t, xfs_agblock_t *, xfs_extlen_t *);

   * Lookup the record equal to [bno, len] in the btree given by cur.
Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c
--- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c
+++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c
@@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ restart:
   * args->minlen no suitable extent could be found, and the higher level
   * code needs to force out the log and retry the allocation.
-STATIC void
        struct xfs_alloc_arg    *args,
        xfs_agblock_t           bno,
Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.h
--- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.h
+++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.h
@@ -54,6 +54,10 @@ void
  xfs_extent_busy_reuse(struct xfs_mount *mp, xfs_agnumber_t agno,
        xfs_agblock_t fbno, xfs_extlen_t flen, bool userdata);

+xfs_extent_busy_trim(struct xfs_alloc_arg *args, xfs_agblock_t bno,
+       xfs_extlen_t len, xfs_agblock_t *rbno, xfs_extlen_t *rlen);
  xfs_extent_busy_ag_cmp(void *priv, struct list_head *a, struct list_head *b);

Hmmm, I saw that before. I have been hand patching that to test.

Looks good.

Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>