linux-next: xfs tree build failure

linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 596 bytes --]

Hi David,

Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:

In file included from fs/xfs/support/debug.c:21:
fs/xfs/xfs_error.h:137: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before 'xfs_mount_t'
fs/xfs/xfs_error.h:138: error: expected ')' before '*' token

Immediate cause is commit 7bf446f8b581cef434f5ff05e8a791563bc09b7f ("xfs:
include header files for prototypes").

I have merged the version of the xfs tree from next-20090306 instead of
today's.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Dave Chinner]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 01:45:47PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
> 
> In file included from fs/xfs/support/debug.c:21:
> fs/xfs/xfs_error.h:137: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before 'xfs_mount_t'
> fs/xfs/xfs_error.h:138: error: expected ')' before '*' token
> 
> Immediate cause is commit 7bf446f8b581cef434f5ff05e8a791563bc09b7f ("xfs:
> include header files for prototypes").

Obviously nobody built this on a CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG=y kernel before
pushing it. Moving the xfs_error.h include down below all the other
includes (i.e after xfs_mount.h) will fix the problem....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 830 bytes --]

Hi David,

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:45:47 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
> 
> In file included from fs/xfs/support/debug.c:21:
> fs/xfs/xfs_error.h:137: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before 'xfs_mount_t'
> fs/xfs/xfs_error.h:138: error: expected ')' before '*' token

This is still happening.

Looking at the preprocessed output. xfs_mount_t is not defined yet, so
either fs/xfs/xfs_error.h needs to include xfs_mount.h (in the DEBUG
case) or xfs_errortag_add and xfs_errortag_clearall need to use "struct
xfs_mount" as their paramaters instead of xfs_mount_t (and predeclare
"struct xfs_mount").

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Dave Chinner]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:04:41PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:45:47 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > In file included from fs/xfs/support/debug.c:21:
> > fs/xfs/xfs_error.h:137: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before 'xfs_mount_t'
> > fs/xfs/xfs_error.h:138: error: expected ')' before '*' token
> 
> This is still happening.

Yes, there is a reviewed patch that doesn't appear to have been
checked into the tree yet....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: [xfs-masters] linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Felix Blyakher]

On Mar 15, 2009, at 7:18 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:04:41PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:45:47 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au 
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
>>>
>>> In file included from fs/xfs/support/debug.c:21:
>>> fs/xfs/xfs_error.h:137: error: expected declaration specifiers or  
>>> '...' before 'xfs_mount_t'
>>> fs/xfs/xfs_error.h:138: error: expected ')' before '*' token
>>
>> This is still happening.
>
> Yes, there is a reviewed patch that doesn't appear to have been
> checked into the tree yet....

Checked in now.
Thanks for reporting it.

Felix

Re: [xfs-masters] linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 235 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:33:46 -0500 Felix Blyakher <felixb@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> Checked in now.

Great, thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 297 bytes --]

Hi Felix, Christoph,

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:54:07 -0500 Felix Blyakher <felixb@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> The fix is now in official xfs tree as well.

Thanks, I will pick it up tomorrow.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Felix Blyakher]

On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:28 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 11:25:09AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>>
>> fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c:63: error: static declaration of  
>> 'xfs_inobt_lookup' follows non-static declaration
>> fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.h:155: note: previous declaration of  
>> 'xfs_inobt_lookup' was here
>>
>> Caused by commit 2187550525d7bcb8c87689e4eca41b1955bf9ac3 ("xfs:
>> rationalize xfs_inobt_lookup*").
>
> I've sent a fix to the list about an hour ago:

I've reviewed it and picked it up right away.
Thanks, Christoph.


> Subject: [PATCH] xfs: un-static xfs_inobt_lookup
> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
> xfs_inobt_lookup is also used in xfs_itable.c, remove the STATIC  
> modifier
> from it's declaration to fix non-debug builds.
>
> This was already fixed in my git tree vs the version last posted to  
> the
> list.

>
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
> Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c
> ===================================================================
> --- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c	2009-09-01 20:47:28.515468366 -0300
> +++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c	2009-09-01 20:47:33.867913011 -0300
> @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ xfs_ialloc_cluster_alignment(
> /*
>  * Lookup a record by ino in the btree given by cur.
>  */
> -STATIC int				/* error */
> +int					/* error */
> xfs_inobt_lookup(
> 	struct xfs_btree_cur	*cur,	/* btree cursor */
> 	xfs_agino_t		ino,	/* starting inode of chunk */
>>
>> I have used the version of the xfs tree from next-20090901 for today.

Argh! It was broken just for couple of hours.
The fix is now in official xfs tree as well.

Thanks,
Felix

>>
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
>> http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
>
>
> ---end quoted text---

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 11:25:09AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> 
> fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c:63: error: static declaration of 'xfs_inobt_lookup' follows non-static declaration
> fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.h:155: note: previous declaration of 'xfs_inobt_lookup' was here
> 
> Caused by commit 2187550525d7bcb8c87689e4eca41b1955bf9ac3 ("xfs:
> rationalize xfs_inobt_lookup*").

I've sent a fix to the list about an hour ago:



Subject: [PATCH] xfs: un-static xfs_inobt_lookup
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

xfs_inobt_lookup is also used in xfs_itable.c, remove the STATIC modifier
from it's declaration to fix non-debug builds.

This was already fixed in my git tree vs the version last posted to the
list.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c
===================================================================
--- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c	2009-09-01 20:47:28.515468366 -0300
+++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c	2009-09-01 20:47:33.867913011 -0300
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ xfs_ialloc_cluster_alignment(
 /*
  * Lookup a record by ino in the btree given by cur.
  */
-STATIC int				/* error */
+int					/* error */
 xfs_inobt_lookup(
 	struct xfs_btree_cur	*cur,	/* btree cursor */
 	xfs_agino_t		ino,	/* starting inode of chunk */
> 
> I have used the version of the xfs tree from next-20090901 for today.
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/


---end quoted text---

linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 553 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c:63: error: static declaration of 'xfs_inobt_lookup' follows non-static declaration
fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.h:155: note: previous declaration of 'xfs_inobt_lookup' was here

Caused by commit 2187550525d7bcb8c87689e4eca41b1955bf9ac3 ("xfs:
rationalize xfs_inobt_lookup*").

I have used the version of the xfs tree from next-20090901 for today.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 520 bytes --]

Hi David,

Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:

fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c: In function 'xlog_recover_check_summary':
fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c:4046: error: implicit declaration of function 'xfs_read_agf'

Caused by commit 370f048214b4e9aa2102fa3c454ae1374da287c5 ("xfs: add more
statics & drop some unused functions").

I have used the xfs tree from next-20090702 for today.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Eric Sandeen]

Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> The build of next-20081203 (sh titan_defconfig, powerpc ppc6xx_defconfig,
> mips defconfig, m68k defconfig and others) failed like this:
> 
> In file included from fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c:40:
> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:50: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_time_t'
> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:79: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_uptr_t'
> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:94: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_uptr_t'
> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:131: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_uptr_t'
> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:142: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_uptr_t'
> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:152: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_uptr_t'
> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:161: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_uptr_t'
> 
> a and few other errors depending on which arch and config.
> 
> I have dropped the xfs tree for today.

My fault, grr.  Christoph sent a patch to fix it which had a problem of
its own, but the sgi guys know about it all and a fix should be in their
tree soon.  Sorry about that!

Thanks,

-Eric

linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1122 bytes --]

Hi David,

The build of next-20081203 (sh titan_defconfig, powerpc ppc6xx_defconfig,
mips defconfig, m68k defconfig and others) failed like this:

In file included from fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c:40:
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:50: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_time_t'
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:79: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_uptr_t'
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:94: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_uptr_t'
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:131: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_uptr_t'
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:142: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_uptr_t'
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:152: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_uptr_t'
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ioctl32.h:161: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'compat_uptr_t'

a and few other errors depending on which arch and config.

I have dropped the xfs tree for today.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 338 bytes --]

Hi Lachlan,

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:05:14 +1100 Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, your fix is in and it is building again.

Thanks, I saw that this morning, so the xfs tree should be in linux-next
today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Lachlan McIlroy]

Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:27:53 -0500 Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 07:47:54AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>>> I think it's probably the only solution - we need to wait until
>>>>> the I_LOCK bit is cleared from the inode and AFAICT wait_on_inode()
>>>>> is the only way to do it.
>>>> Any resolution?
>>> I was waiting on a comment from Christoph. I'll cc him directly this
>>> time ;)
>> What comment do you expect from me?  The fix looks correct, but at some
>> point you should probably run all these exports past Al to get another
>> review.  Especially as he's doing major work in this area currently.
> 
> OK, I have dropped the xfs tree for today.  Let me know when it is sorted
> out.

Okay, your fix is in and it is building again.

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 883 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:27:53 -0500 Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 07:47:54AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > I think it's probably the only solution - we need to wait until
> > > > the I_LOCK bit is cleared from the inode and AFAICT wait_on_inode()
> > > > is the only way to do it.
> > > 
> > > Any resolution?
> > 
> > I was waiting on a comment from Christoph. I'll cc him directly this
> > time ;)
> 
> What comment do you expect from me?  The fix looks correct, but at some
> point you should probably run all these exports past Al to get another
> review.  Especially as he's doing major work in this area currently.

OK, I have dropped the xfs tree for today.  Let me know when it is sorted
out.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 07:47:54AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > I think it's probably the only solution - we need to wait until
> > > the I_LOCK bit is cleared from the inode and AFAICT wait_on_inode()
> > > is the only way to do it.
> > 
> > Any resolution?
> 
> I was waiting on a comment from Christoph. I'll cc him directly this
> time ;)

What comment do you expect from me?  The fix looks correct, but at some
point you should probably run all these exports past Al to get another
review.  Especially as he's doing major work in this area currently.

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Dave Chinner]

On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 01:20:00PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:08:32 +1100 Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 01:23:24PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> > > 
> > > ERROR: "inode_wait" [fs/xfs/xfs.ko] undefined!
> > > 
> > > Caused by commit 676a7711ee281c3bf41db18e29e296584de82793 ("[XFS] Fix
> > > race when looking up reclaimable inodes") which introduced a use of
> > > wait_on_inode() which is an inline that calls inode_wait().
> > 
> > Putting a non-exported symbol in an inline function in a header file
> > that is full of exported functions.  That's pretty anti-social. ;)
> > 
> > > I applied the following patch (probably wrong :-)).
> > 
> > I think it's probably the only solution - we need to wait until
> > the I_LOCK bit is cleared from the inode and AFAICT wait_on_inode()
> > is the only way to do it.
> 
> Any resolution?

I was waiting on a comment from Christoph. I'll cc him directly this
time ;)

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1025 bytes --]

Hi Dave,

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:08:32 +1100 Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 01:23:24PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > ERROR: "inode_wait" [fs/xfs/xfs.ko] undefined!
> > 
> > Caused by commit 676a7711ee281c3bf41db18e29e296584de82793 ("[XFS] Fix
> > race when looking up reclaimable inodes") which introduced a use of
> > wait_on_inode() which is an inline that calls inode_wait().
> 
> Putting a non-exported symbol in an inline function in a header file
> that is full of exported functions.  That's pretty anti-social. ;)
> 
> > I applied the following patch (probably wrong :-)).
> 
> I think it's probably the only solution - we need to wait until
> the I_LOCK bit is cleared from the inode and AFAICT wait_on_inode()
> is the only way to do it.

Any resolution?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Dave Chinner]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 01:23:24PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> 
> ERROR: "inode_wait" [fs/xfs/xfs.ko] undefined!
> 
> Caused by commit 676a7711ee281c3bf41db18e29e296584de82793 ("[XFS] Fix
> race when looking up reclaimable inodes") which introduced a use of
> wait_on_inode() which is an inline that calls inode_wait().

Putting a non-exported symbol in an inline function in a header file
that is full of exported functions.  That's pretty anti-social. ;)

> I applied the following patch (probably wrong :-)).

I think it's probably the only solution - we need to wait until
the I_LOCK bit is cleared from the inode and AFAICT wait_on_inode()
is the only way to do it.

Christoph?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

linux-next: xfs tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi David,

Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

ERROR: "inode_wait" [fs/xfs/xfs.ko] undefined!

Caused by commit 676a7711ee281c3bf41db18e29e296584de82793 ("[XFS] Fix
race when looking up reclaimable inodes") which introduced a use of
wait_on_inode() which is an inline that calls inode_wait().

I applied the following patch (probably wrong :-)).
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:19:46 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] fs: xfs needs inode_wait to be exported

Since wait_on_inode() references it.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 fs/inode.c |    1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
index f84ba33..098a244 100644
--- a/fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/inode.c
@@ -1334,6 +1334,7 @@ int inode_wait(void *word)
 	schedule();
 	return 0;
 }
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(inode_wait);
 
 /*
  * If we try to find an inode in the inode hash while it is being
-- 
1.5.6.5