From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:9124 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753257AbbDAUDc (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:03:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:03:18 -0400 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: btrfs: Add missing include file To: Guenter Roeck CC: Josef Bacik , David Sterba , , , Christoph Hellwig Message-ID: <1427918598.20109.1@mail.thefacebook.com> In-Reply-To: <551C4DCC.2090208@roeck-us.net> References: <1426237126-9700-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20150330032413.GA26566@roeck-us.net> <1427916499.20109.0@mail.thefacebook.com> <551C4DCC.2090208@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 04/01/2015 12:28 PM, Chris Mason wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Guenter Roeck >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 01:58:46AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>> Building alpha:allmodconfig fails with >>>> >>>> fs/btrfs/inode.c: In function 'check_direct_Excellent idea. >>>> Done,IO': >>>> fs/btrfs/inode.c:8050:2: error: implicit declaration of function >>>> 'iov_iter_alignment' >>>> >>>> due to a missing include file. >>>> >>>> Fixes: 3737c63e1fb0 ("fs: move struct kiocb to fs.h") >>>> Cc: Christoph Hellwig >>>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck >>>> --- >>> >>> This problem still affects the following builds as of today. >>> >>> alpha:allmodconfig >>> i386:allyesconfig >>> i386:allmodconfig >>> m68k:allmodconfig >>> mips:allmodconfig >>> xtensa:allmodconfig >>> >>> and thus probabably many other allmodconfig builds which I don't >>> try to build. >>> >>> This is getting really annoying, and prevents us from finding and >>> fixing >>> other build problems. >>> >>> It has been more than two weeks since I submitted the patch. This >>> suggests >>> that the patch got lost otr that the Powers That Be don't care. >>> Which one >>> is it ? >>> >>> Should I request to revert 3737c63e1fb0 instead ? >> >> I'll put the include into my branch for -next, thanks! >> > > I have not seen the problem in the latest -next build, > which presumably means that some other patch must have > fixed the problem or at least hides it now. No idea > which one, though. It's not immediately obvious what might have fixed it, so I'll keep this patch in my -next for today at least ;) -chris