[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170613205409.4b7e06f9@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:54:09 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree
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?
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.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@...b.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,
--
2.11.0
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Powered by blists - more mailing lists