From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E8C7C2BB1D for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:07:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B92E2073E for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:07:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="E+os28dR" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727196AbgCLNHW (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:07:22 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com ([209.85.166.68]:37918 "EHLO mail-io1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726194AbgCLNHW (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:07:22 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id c25so4952213ioi.5 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:07:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mUPVwLwbl+qGOG5kVPBNHG9adxeUh8JOP6RdVyzLB/I=; b=E+os28dRCW2/v1ohMkOsikz/8hYa7mpints86TuEemrPaYqU6XFgB2aiT2cRuJY/fb nWSpMZV5DwN1EbY83N0wRV2dr4MAFwDe3mDlmZpLuL3F1aEClDztKuAC8FExEsIW2QB2 bTWsm3Zev9Fi9+yVqLGy6MqlDPxW8PksROSMyEp7FAj6gDltIaD9ndaQE+X805buhieW n57qicJpBwPBLvI8tHA7wVnhwRY8RfTWtsSIZgRa28eYts4CKOHUhgesF0EyDskOIXls benlZXj9g43xMpir3r2H0EHiCmH7U+NlkRhcYsmy8/hNWwdkY/z2/yp6k+ORpIkBiuVo eQJQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mUPVwLwbl+qGOG5kVPBNHG9adxeUh8JOP6RdVyzLB/I=; b=nU3emKNN6ynP2C4zE+/CqNkj+4pP3Kx2QYLZW0oSS7vXrHbarFDMcfJNYKcUiJqwgj CwRFjPOR9KmhHFSp1ASpedeeo+pT8T07vW9KQ58yFi8g7xCZohDeL1AQF+eGWCrreJVm iqrkr/aA94P1UiTyNrpgGxrjMqRKAOCU7dsp4hZmlYKHuEg7zkJYxIoEsKcJFIR/rj2L v+vHEuJBZvcQNF7IJw1a+63OHObBC3gegWLqNIZPLaBhkMOHhkjbgdRdsRI6qtoTNymS ggrdpBjjRjiDiQCClmgTgUnuEWzIgjfAV0L9Jf4YAm+OjoNoB9B4odgppm9GR4ZBwrbJ PE/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0CFe0mgJ9XlLCTQGD3G/uZTwy59EGSQhfh7FrrYGBydhtoO2CU obCNxiX2TtjauKKPFPwUCejmPPXYX8ISLg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vt+fR4+B0ZCsiefMYIUrjnUtYF3XYvh9X83QTCCEfHOKk7fQk2p9JzHbDUoxsiC7hW/VvgQLA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:984e:: with SMTP id p14mr7593477ios.115.1584018439543; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.159] ([65.144.74.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n18sm5383585ilq.38.2020.03.12.06.07.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree To: Matteo Croce , Stephen Rothwell Cc: Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Martin K. Petersen" , Coly Li References: <20200312135457.6891749e@canb.auug.org.au> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org On 3/12/20 4:12 AM, Matteo Croce wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:55 AM Stephen Rothwell 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