Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Quoting Guenter Roeck (2013-09-13 12:35:35)
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:52:43PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same':
> > > > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function '__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> > > > make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1
> > > > make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> > > >
> > > > Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and
> > > > xtensa:allmodconfig.
> > > 
> > > Known issue, cfr. my early warning 10 days ago:
> > > 
> > > "Btrfs is the first user of __put_user_unaligned() outside the compat code,
> > > hence now all 32-bit architectures should make sure to implement this, too."
> > > 
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=137820065929216&w=2
> > > 
> > > and today's thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/12/814
> > > 
> > 
> > It doesn't seem right that a patch breaks the build for several platforms, and
> > the problem is then blamed on the platform code instead of the code that is
> > introducing the problem.
> > 
> > Maybe we should add BROKEN to the btrfs dependencies for the affected platforms.
> > After all, it _is_ broken.
> 
> I'm happy to fix this with a bigger put of the info struct, just
> let me know the preferred arch-happy solution.
> 
Me not either. The only requirement I would have is that it should not break
a build. Of course, it would be even better if it would actually work ;-).

Guenter