From: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Cc: oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev
Subject: [koverstreet-bcachefs:for-next 8/88] fs/bcachefs/recovery_passes.c:310:25: error: implicit declaration of function 'bch2_copygc_wakeup'; did you mean 'bch2_copygc_stop'?
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 10:56:23 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202504211050.9JWjtwUN-lkp@intel.com> (raw)
tree: https://github.com/koverstreet/bcachefs for-next
head: 48a36d7314e1e3926a0182c64148b463fbf567a6
commit: 16dc3473761933886977054b31d2bb3e171ad603 [8/88] bcachefs: Start copygc, rebalance threads earlier
config: csky-randconfig-001-20250421 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250421/202504211050.9JWjtwUN-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: csky-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250421/202504211050.9JWjtwUN-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202504211050.9JWjtwUN-lkp@intel.com/
Note: the koverstreet-bcachefs/for-next HEAD 48a36d7314e1e3926a0182c64148b463fbf567a6 builds fine.
It only hurts bisectability.
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
fs/bcachefs/recovery_passes.c: In function 'bch2_run_recovery_passes':
>> fs/bcachefs/recovery_passes.c:310:25: error: implicit declaration of function 'bch2_copygc_wakeup'; did you mean 'bch2_copygc_stop'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
310 | bch2_copygc_wakeup(c);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| bch2_copygc_stop
>> fs/bcachefs/recovery_passes.c:311:25: error: implicit declaration of function 'bch2_rebalance_wakeup'; did you mean 'bch2_rebalance_stop'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
311 | bch2_rebalance_wakeup(c);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| bch2_rebalance_stop
--
fs/bcachefs/recovery.c: In function 'bch2_fs_initialize':
fs/bcachefs/recovery.c:1198:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'bch2_copygc_wakeup'; did you mean 'bch2_copygc_stop'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
1198 | bch2_copygc_wakeup(c);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| bch2_copygc_stop
>> fs/bcachefs/recovery.c:1199:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'bch2_rebalance_wakeup'; did you mean 'bch2_rebalance_stop'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
1199 | bch2_rebalance_wakeup(c);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| bch2_rebalance_stop
vim +310 fs/bcachefs/recovery_passes.c
255
256 int bch2_run_recovery_passes(struct bch_fs *c)
257 {
258 int ret = 0;
259
260 /*
261 * We can't allow set_may_go_rw to be excluded; that would cause us to
262 * use the journal replay keys for updates where it's not expected.
263 */
264 c->opts.recovery_passes_exclude &= ~BCH_RECOVERY_PASS_set_may_go_rw;
265
266 while (c->curr_recovery_pass < ARRAY_SIZE(recovery_pass_fns) && !ret) {
267 spin_lock_irq(&c->recovery_pass_lock);
268 unsigned prev_done = c->recovery_pass_done;
269 unsigned pass = c->curr_recovery_pass;
270
271 c->next_recovery_pass = pass + 1;
272
273 if (c->opts.recovery_pass_last &&
274 c->curr_recovery_pass > c->opts.recovery_pass_last) {
275 spin_unlock_irq(&c->recovery_pass_lock);
276 break;
277 }
278
279 if (should_run_recovery_pass(c, pass)) {
280 spin_unlock_irq(&c->recovery_pass_lock);
281
282 ret = bch2_run_recovery_pass(c, pass) ?:
283 bch2_journal_flush(&c->journal);
284
285 if (!ret && !test_bit(BCH_FS_error, &c->flags))
286 bch2_clear_recovery_pass_required(c, pass);
287
288 spin_lock_irq(&c->recovery_pass_lock);
289 }
290
291 if (c->next_recovery_pass < c->curr_recovery_pass) {
292 /*
293 * bch2_run_explicit_recovery_pass() was called: we
294 * can't always catch -BCH_ERR_restart_recovery because
295 * it may have been called from another thread (btree
296 * node read completion)
297 */
298 ret = 0;
299 c->recovery_passes_complete &= ~(~0ULL << c->curr_recovery_pass);
300 } else {
301 c->recovery_passes_complete |= BIT_ULL(pass);
302 c->recovery_pass_done = max(c->recovery_pass_done, pass);
303 }
304 c->curr_recovery_pass = c->next_recovery_pass;
305
306 spin_unlock_irq(&c->recovery_pass_lock);
307
308 if (prev_done <= BCH_RECOVERY_PASS_check_snapshots &&
309 c->recovery_pass_done > BCH_RECOVERY_PASS_check_snapshots) {
> 310 bch2_copygc_wakeup(c);
> 311 bch2_rebalance_wakeup(c);
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
reply other threads:[~2025-04-21 2:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202504211050.9JWjtwUN-lkp@intel.com \
--to=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--cc=oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.