linuxppc-2.5 (mvista rsync) -- drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1843: error: request for member `queue_head' in something not a structure or union

linuxppc-2.5 (mvista rsync) -- drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1843: error: request for member `queue_head' in something not a structure or union

[Miles Lane]

  CC      drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.o
drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `pmac_ide_build_sglist':
drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1198: warning: passing arg 1 of `blk_rq_map_sg' from
incompatible pointer type
drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `pmac_ide_dma_test_irq':
drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1673: warning: comparison is always false due to
limited range of data type
drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `idepmac_wake_device':
drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1843: error: request for member `queue_head' in
something not a structure or union
drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `idepmac_wake_drive':
drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1927: error: request for member `queue_head' in
something not a structure or union

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc-2.5 (mvista rsync) -- drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1843: error: request for member `queue_head' in something not a structure or union

[Miles Lane]

Sorry, I should have included this in the original message.

Gnu C                  3.3.1
Gnu make               3.80
util-linux             2.11z
mount                  2.11x
e2fsprogs              1.32
pcmcia-cs              3.2.3
PPP                    2.4.1
nfs-utils              1.0.5
Linux C Library        2.3.1
Dynamic linker (ldd)   2.3.1
Procps                 3.1.6
Net-tools              1.60
Console-tools          0.2.3
Sh-utils               5.0
GNU ld version 2.14 20030612

#
# ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support
#
CONFIG_IDE=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE=y

CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDISK=y
CONFIG_IDEDISK_MULTI_MODE=y
CONFIG_IDEDISK_STROKE=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDECD=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEFLOPPY=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDESCSI=y
CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL=y

CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEPCI=y
CONFIG_IDEPCI_SHARE_IRQ=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_GENERIC=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SL82C105=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDMA_PCI=y
CONFIG_IDEDMA_PCI_AUTO=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ADMA=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE_PMAC=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDMA_PMAC=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDMA_PMAC_AUTO=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDMA=y
CONFIG_IDEDMA_IVB=y
CONFIG_IDEDMA_AUTO=y

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc-2.5 (mvista rsync) -- drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1843: error: request for member `queue_head' in something not a structure or union

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 17:51, Miles Lane wrote:
>   CC      drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.o
> drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `pmac_ide_build_sglist':
> drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1198: warning: passing arg 1 of `blk_rq_map_sg' from
> incompatible pointer type
> drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `pmac_ide_dma_test_irq':
> drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1673: warning: comparison is always false due to
> limited range of data type
> drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `idepmac_wake_device':
> drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1843: error: request for member `queue_head' in
> something not a structure or union
> drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `idepmac_wake_drive':
> drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1927: error: request for member `queue_head' in
> something not a structure or union

I sent an updated version of this driver to linus today

Ben.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc-2.5 (mvista rsync) -- drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1843: error: request for member `queue_head' in something not a structure or union

[Miles Lane]

On Sun August 10 2003 1:38 pm, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 17:51, Miles Lane wrote:
> >   CC      drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.o
> > drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `idepmac_wake_device':
> > drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1843: error: request for member `queue_head' in
> > something not a structure or union
> > drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `idepmac_wake_drive':
> > drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1927: error: request for member `queue_head' in
> > something not a structure or union
>
> I sent an updated version of this driver to linus today

When you send patches to Linus to fix problems that show up in
the linuxppc-2.5 tree, you don't also apply the patch directly to
the linuxppc-2.5 tree?  If you and Paul use BK, couldn't you have
Paul pull the changeset?  Is our current process the most efficient
we could use?

I am curious, why do you and Paul not use a system more like Russell's
(changes move into Linus' tree as soon as they are fairly well tested
and he maintains the ARM patches in
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rmk/arm/v2.5/)?

Thanks,
	Miles

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc-2.5 (mvista rsync) -- drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1843: error: request for member `queue_head' in something not a structure or union

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 22:51, Miles Lane wrote:
> On Sun August 10 2003 1:38 pm, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 17:51, Miles Lane wrote:
> > >   CC      drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.o
> > > drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `idepmac_wake_device':
> > > drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1843: error: request for member `queue_head' in
> > > something not a structure or union
> > > drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `idepmac_wake_drive':
> > > drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1927: error: request for member `queue_head' in
> > > something not a structure or union
> >
> > I sent an updated version of this driver to linus today
>
> When you send patches to Linus to fix problems that show up in
> the linuxppc-2.5 tree, you don't also apply the patch directly to
> the linuxppc-2.5 tree?  If you and Paul use BK, couldn't you have
> Paul pull the changeset?  Is our current process the most efficient
> we could use?

Right now, I'm sending massive PowerMac driver updates directly
to Linus. Typically, all of this is available from my linuxppc-2.5-benh
tree, though I don't really recommend for non-hackers to use that.

> I am curious, why do you and Paul not use a system more like Russell's
> (changes move into Linus' tree as soon as they are fairly well tested
> and he maintains the ARM patches in

I'm trying to completely avoid having a "ppc" or "powermac" tree with
2.6, at least once all the "pending" bits from mine have been in Linus.
I want to keep as close as Linus tree as I can, not reproduce what I did
for 2.4 where I had megabytes of diffs piling up.

Ben.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/