From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the staging tree Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:14:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20180802071453.GA25644@kroah.com> References: <20180730161622.3837cb15@canb.auug.org.au> <559c49b8-9d58-e242-20c2-fe1b491664dd@huawei.com> <7152b6ba-9ad6-4a9c-3b13-2d5310266ccd@huawei.com> <20180802061518.GD3272@kroah.com> <78a6edc0-fd04-1750-d860-3c068fa1b67d@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <78a6edc0-fd04-1750-d860-3c068fa1b67d@huawei.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chao Yu Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Gao Xiang , Al Viro , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , David Howells , Miao Xie , Chao Yu List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 03:01:59PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On 2018/8/2 14:15, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 05:09:13PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > >> Hi Stephen, > >> > >> On 2018/7/30 14:31, Gao Xiang wrote: > >>> Hi Stephen, > >>> > >>> On 2018/7/30 14:16, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>>> Hi Greg, > >>>> > >>>> After merging the staging tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 > >>>> allmodconfig) failed like this: > >>>> > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: In function 'erofs_read_super': > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:343:17: error: 'MS_RDONLY' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'IS_RDONLY'? > >>>> sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY | MS_NOATIME; > >>>> ^~~~~~~~~ > >>>> IS_RDONLY > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:343:17: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:343:29: error: 'MS_NOATIME' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'S_NOATIME'? > >>>> sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY | MS_NOATIME; > >>>> ^~~~~~~~~~ > >>>> S_NOATIME > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: In function 'erofs_mount': > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:501:10: warning: passing argument 5 of 'mount_bdev' makes integer from pointer without a cast [-Wint-conversion] > >>>> &priv, erofs_fill_super); > >>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>> In file included from include/linux/buffer_head.h:12:0, > >>>> from drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:14: > >>>> include/linux/fs.h:2151:23: note: expected 'size_t {aka long unsigned int}' but argument is of type 'int (*)(struct super_block *, void *, int)' > >>>> extern struct dentry *mount_bdev(struct file_system_type *fs_type, > >>>> ^~~~~~~~~~ > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:500:9: error: too few arguments to function 'mount_bdev' > >>>> return mount_bdev(fs_type, flags, dev_name, > >>>> ^~~~~~~~~~ > >>>> In file included from include/linux/buffer_head.h:12:0, > >>>> from drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:14: > >>>> include/linux/fs.h:2151:23: note: declared here > >>>> extern struct dentry *mount_bdev(struct file_system_type *fs_type, > >>>> ^~~~~~~~~~ > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: At top level: > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:518:20: error: initialization from incompatible pointer type [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types] > >>>> .mount = erofs_mount, > >>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:518:20: note: (near initialization for 'erofs_fs_type.mount') > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: In function 'erofs_remount': > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:630:12: error: 'MS_RDONLY' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'IS_RDONLY'? > >>>> *flags |= MS_RDONLY; > >>>> ^~~~~~~~~ > >>>> IS_RDONLY > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: At top level: > >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:640:16: error: initialization from incompatible pointer type [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types] > >>>> .remount_fs = erofs_remount, > >>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>> > >>>> Caused by various commits creating erofs in the staging tree interacting > >>>> with various commits redoing the mount infrastructure in the vfs tree. > >>>> > >>>> I have disabed CONFIG_EROFS_FS for now: > >> > >> Xiang has submitted several patches as below to fix compiling error on -next > >> tree, could you consider to merge those temporary fixes into -next after merging > >> staging-next's updates, and reenable CONFIG_EROFS_FS for further integrity > >> compiling and test? > >> > >> staging: erofs: fix superblock/inode flags (MS_RDONLY -> SB_RDONLY, S_NOATIME) > >> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/2018-July/000282.html > >> > >> staging: erofs: remove RADIX_TREE_EXCEPTIONAL_{ENTRY, SHIFT} > >> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/2018-July/000283.html > >> > >> staging: erofs: update .mount and .remount_sb > >> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/2018-July/000285.html > > > > Why have these not been submitted to me for inclusion in my tree? > Oh, let me explain, that is because the compiling error only occurs in -next > tree, since -next collects and merges developing patches including common vfs > stuff from multi-trees, but those patches didn't cover erofs, such as: > > ('vfs: Suppress MS_* flag defs within the kernel unless explicitly enabled") > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=109b45090d7d3ce2797bb1ef7f70eead5bfe0ff3 > > ("vfs: Require specification of size of mount data for internal mounts") > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=0a191e4505a4f255e6513b49426213da69bf0e80 > > As I checked, above vfs related patches has not been merged in staging tree, if > I submit those erofs patches to you and after including them in > staging-{test,nexts} tree, it can easily cause compiling error. So I just send > them to Stephen first for fixing integrity compiling error. > > Then I'd like to ask how to handle this condition to avoid potential conflict in > between erofs and vfs changes during merging window. As Stephen suggested, we > can disabling CONFIG_EROFS_FS temporarily to pass merge window, and after that > we reenable CONFIG_EROFS_FS and apply those fixing patches. Ok, doing that will work. > I'd like to ask and make sure, do you agree that we can handle the condition by > this way? or do you have any suggestion about solving this issue? This is a side affect of being in the staging tree only at this point in time. It will get easier once things get merged correctly. thanks, greg k-h