From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: linux-next: block tree build failure Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:00:01 +0200 Message-ID: <20090626090001.GA23611@kernel.dk> References: <20090626125331.89c689f2.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090626043937.GJ31415@kernel.dk> <19012.24947.650584.93908@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:49348 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754398AbZFZI77 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:59:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19012.24947.650584.93908@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Neil Brown Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 26 2009, Neil Brown wrote: > On Friday June 26, jens.axboe@oracle.com wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26 2009, NeilBrown wrote: > > > On Fri, June 26, 2009 12:53 pm, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi Jens, > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this: > > > > > > > > block/blk-core.c: In function '__make_request': > > > > block/blk-core.c:1179: error: expected ';' before 'return' > > > > > > > > Caused by commit 6cf2a6c8d01514e86a8d38e4eeed402378b635dc ("Restore > > > > barrier support for md and probably other virtual devices") which I have > > > > reverted for today. > > > > > > Arg, that's my fault - sorry. > > > > > > + bio_endio(bio, -EOPNOTSUPP) > > > + return 0; > > > > > > should of course be > > > > > > + bio_endio(bio, -EOPNOTSUPP); > > > + return 0; > > > > I was certain I ran it through a compile cycle, sorry about that > > Stephen. And Neil sending uncompiled patches, very uncool. Did you even > > test it? I've pulled it for now. > > I tested this time. > Without the patch a 'mount -o journal=1 /dev/md0 /mnt' > followed by writing to /mnt/something produces > > Jun 26 15:34:18 dell kernel: JBD: barrier-based sync failed on md0 - disabling barriers > > in the kernel logs. > With the patch, it doesn't. > > Comment updated slightly too. Applied this one. But please in the future do let me know if you haven't tested or even compiled a patch. When I get an official looking patch like the previous one, I'll usually apply it directly. Breaking the build is baaaad. -- Jens Axboe