Re: linux-next: Tree for April 24

Re: linux-next: Tree for April 24

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Status of my local build tests will be at
> http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/linux-next.  If maintainers want to give
> advice about cross compilers/configs that work, we are always open to add
> more builds.

For the second day in a row, m68k builds failed because of

    fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c:527: error: implicit declaration of function 'xfs_icsb_sync_counters_locked'
    make[3]: *** [fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.o] Error 1

According to
http://www.linux.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00202.html, there's a
forward declaration for xfs_icsb_sync_counters_locked() only if HAVE_PERCPU_SB
is defined, i.e. for CONFIG_SMP. This break UP architectures.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: linux-next: Tree for April 24

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:40:15PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Status of my local build tests will be at
> > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/linux-next.  If maintainers want to give
> > advice about cross compilers/configs that work, we are always open to add
> > more builds.
> 
> For the second day in a row, m68k builds failed because of
> 
>     fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c:527: error: implicit declaration of function 'xfs_icsb_sync_counters_locked'
>     make[3]: *** [fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.o] Error 1

Eric already submitted a patch on the xfs list, that should make it to
the tree ASAP.