linux-next: block/rcu merge build failure

linux-next: block/rcu merge build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Jens,

Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

kernel/smp.c: In function 'generic_smp_call_function_interrupt':
kernel/smp.c:106: error: implicit declaration of function 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'

This is caused by the merge of the rcu tree (contained in sched tree)
with the block tree.  I have applied the following patch which I will
carry as part of the block tree merge commit.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

>From b840cba6063223fd497ef59d8734764469b86a9e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:07:02 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] block: fix up rculist split fallout

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 kernel/smp.c |    1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index d7653fd..a0c9cb0 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
 #include <linux/module.h>
 #include <linux/percpu.h>
 #include <linux/rcupdate.h>
+#include <linux/rculist.h>
 #include <linux/smp.h>
 
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct call_single_queue, call_single_queue);
-- 
1.5.5.4

Re: linux-next: block/rcu merge build failure

[Jens Axboe]

On Fri, Jun 13 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> 
> Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> 
> kernel/smp.c: In function 'generic_smp_call_function_interrupt':
> kernel/smp.c:106: error: implicit declaration of function 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> 
> This is caused by the merge of the rcu tree (contained in sched tree)
> with the block tree.  I have applied the following patch which I will
> carry as part of the block tree merge commit.

That patch is fine, I guess there's an rcu include splitup patch in
-next which clashes with this a bit. Thanks Stephen.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: linux-next: block/rcu merge build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 349 bytes --]

Hi Jens,

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:18:04 +0200 Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> That patch is fine, I guess there's an rcu include splitup patch in
> -next which clashes with this a bit. Thanks Stephen.

Indeed there is.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]