[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170704151557.GA22088@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 08:15:57 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
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: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree
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@...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,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists