From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot0-f195.google.com ([74.125.82.195]:40556 "EHLO mail-ot0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937016AbeE2Skw (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 14:40:52 -0400 Received: by mail-ot0-f195.google.com with SMTP id n1-v6so18152378otf.7 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 11:40:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180529180823.GA32763@redhat.com> References: <20180528153834.2268557-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20180529175216.24937-1-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <20180529180823.GA32763@redhat.com> From: Dan Williams Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 11:40:50 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: dm-writecache: fix compilation issue with !DAX To: Mike Snitzer Cc: Ross Zwisler , Arnd Bergmann , Mikulas Patocka , Shaohua Li , Alasdair Kergon , device-mapper development , Matthew Wilcox , linux-fsdevel , Heinz Mauelshagen , linux-raid , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Tue, May 29 2018 at 1:52pm -0400, > Ross Zwisler wrote: > >> As reported by Arnd (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/28/1697), dm-writecache >> will fail with link errors in configs where DAX isn't present: >> >> drivers/md/dm-writecache.o: In function `writecache_ctr': >> dm-writecache.c:(.text+0x1fdc): undefined reference to `dax_read_lock' >> dm-writecache.c:(.text+0x2004): undefined reference to `dax_direct_access' >> dm-writecache.c:(.text+0x21cc): undefined reference to `dax_read_unlock' >> >> Fix this by following the lead of the other DM modules and wrapping calls >> to the generic DAX code in #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DAX_DRIVER) blocks. >> >> We also expand the failure case for the 'p' (persistent memory) flag so >> that fails on both architectures that don't support persistent memory and >> on kernels that don't have DAX support configured. This prevents us from >> ever hitting the BUG() in the persistent_memory_claim() stub. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler >> Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann > > Thanks, I've picked this up. ...I assume you're also going to let the 'pmem api' discussion resolve before this all goes upstream?