[PATCH] gdrom: Fix compile error

[PATCH] gdrom: Fix compile error

[Nobuhiro Iwamatsu]

Return value and argument of block_device_operations.release of gdrom
was changed.
This patch fix this problem.

Signed-off-by: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwamatsunigauri.org>
---
 drivers/cdrom/gdrom.c |    5 +++--
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cdrom/gdrom.c b/drivers/cdrom/gdrom.c
index 9aaa86b..2eecb77 100644
--- a/drivers/cdrom/gdrom.c
+++ b/drivers/cdrom/gdrom.c
@@ -495,9 +495,10 @@ static int gdrom_bdops_open(struct block_device
*bdev, fmode_t mode)
 	return cdrom_open(gd.cd_info, bdev, mode);
 }

-static int gdrom_bdops_release(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode)
+static int gdrom_bdops_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
 {
-	return cdrom_release(gd.cd_info, mode);
+	cdrom_release(gd.cd_info, mode);
+	return 0;
 }

 static int gdrom_bdops_mediachanged(struct gendisk *disk)
-- 
1.5.6.5

Re: [PATCH] gdrom: Fix compile error

[Al Viro]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:32:27AM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
> Return value and argument of block_device_operations.release of gdrom
> was changed.
> This patch fix this problem.

Serves me right for snide comments about the benefits of compile-testing ;-)
ACKed-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

FWIW, sh/sh64 is the only cross-toolchain needed for the kernel I hadn't
managed to build - 4.3.0 gcc manages to trigger internal error in sh64 as(1)
(2.18.50.0.6) and AFAICS the same should happen with any binutils up to
-HEAD (the minimal testcase is
        .text
.LFB2:
        .section        .eh_frame,"a",@progbits
        .quad   .LFB2-.
and sh64 gcc4.3 routinely produces such things in its output).  gcc trunk
seems to have arseloads of changes in gcc/config/sh and I hadn't got around
to attempting a backport ;-/

Are there any public sh/sh64 toolchains based on not too heavily hacked
gcc/binutils, ideally for more or less recent variants of both?

Re: [PATCH] gdrom: Fix compile error

[Paul Mundt]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:08:15AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:32:27AM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
> > Return value and argument of block_device_operations.release of gdrom
> > was changed.
> > This patch fix this problem.
> 
> Serves me right for snide comments about the benefits of compile-testing ;-)
> ACKed-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> 
Thanks, applied.

> FWIW, sh/sh64 is the only cross-toolchain needed for the kernel I hadn't
> managed to build - 4.3.0 gcc manages to trigger internal error in sh64 as(1)
> (2.18.50.0.6) and AFAICS the same should happen with any binutils up to
> -HEAD (the minimal testcase is
>         .text
> .LFB2:
>         .section        .eh_frame,"a",@progbits
>         .quad   .LFB2-.
> and sh64 gcc4.3 routinely produces such things in its output).  gcc trunk
> seems to have arseloads of changes in gcc/config/sh and I hadn't got around
> to attempting a backport ;-/
> 
The sh64 gcc is very volatile, finding a combination that works reliably
tends to take a fair bit of effort and random guesswork. The most recent
working one that has been tested is a combination of GCC 4.1.2 and
binutils 2.17. Gentoo's crossdev is capable of building this combination
out of the box.

> Are there any public sh/sh64 toolchains based on not too heavily hacked
> gcc/binutils, ideally for more or less recent variants of both?

I've placed a couple of binary toolchains on userweb:

	http://userweb.kernel.org/~lethal/toolchains/

http://userweb.kernel.org/~lethal/toolchains/gnush4_linux_v0801-test-1-1.i386.tar.gz
in particular is what is most widely used for sh at present, and is a gcc
4.2.1 and binutils 2.17.50 combination. There are not too many deviations
from mainline there however, so most recent combinations should be
buildable. I don't believe anyone has looked at gcc 4.3.0 yet though.