Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1681036 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-04 17:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-07-04 23:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2017-07-04 17:20 +0200
Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-07-04 23:50 +0200
| From | Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 17:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree |
| Message-ID | <tZxMl-1ET-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 08:54:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jall,
>
> After merging the block tree, today's linux-next build (s390x
> s390-defconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c:293:10: error: 'BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY' undeclared (first use in this function)
> drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c:327:9: error: 'BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_OK' undeclared (first use in this function)
>
> Caused by commit
>
> fc17b6534eb8 ("blk-mq: switch ->queue_rq return value to blk_status_t")
>
> interacting with commit
>
> 12d907626539 ("s390/scm: convert to blk-mq")
>
> from the s390 tree.
>
> Is the following the correct merge fixup?
>
The failure made int into Linus' tree, but the fix didn't. Is the fix pending
in some other queue or does it have to be (re-)submitted ?
Guenter
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:51:32 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] s390: fix up for "blk-mq: switch ->queue_rq return value to
> blk_status_t"
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
> drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
> index 42018a20f2b7..2cd6123c8f18 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
> @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> spin_lock(&sq->lock);
> if (!scm_permit_request(bdev, req)) {
> spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
> + return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
> }
>
> scmrq = sq->scmrq;
> @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> if (!scmrq) {
> SCM_LOG(5, "no request");
> spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
> + return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
> }
> scm_request_init(bdev, scmrq);
> sq->scmrq = scmrq;
> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
>
> sq->scmrq = NULL;
> spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
> + return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
> }
> blk_mq_start_request(req);
>
> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> sq->scmrq = NULL;
> }
> spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_OK;
> + return BLK_STS_OK;
> }
>
> static int scm_blk_init_hctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, void *data,
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 23:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tZDRM-5zw-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1681036 |
Hi Guenter,
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 08:15:57 -0700 Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 08:54:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > After merging the block tree, today's linux-next build (s390x
> > s390-defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c:293:10: error: 'BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c:327:9: error: 'BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_OK' undeclared (first use in this function)
> >
> > Caused by commit
> >
> > fc17b6534eb8 ("blk-mq: switch ->queue_rq return value to blk_status_t")
> >
> > interacting with commit
> >
> > 12d907626539 ("s390/scm: convert to blk-mq")
> >
> > from the s390 tree.
> >
> > Is the following the correct merge fixup?
> >
>
> The failure made int into Linus' tree, but the fix didn't. Is the fix pending
> in some other queue or does it have to be (re-)submitted ?
It will be my in fixes tree today and until it appears in Linus' or the
s390 tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web