[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YtOFXz/lCthJh5Eh@ZenIV>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2022 04:43:27 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:33:30AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 7:43 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/14/22 10:10 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > >
> > > I suspect that it would be a good idea to slap
> > > #define no_llseek NULL
> > > into include/linux/fs.h for the merge window, then remove it (and all
> > > stray no_llseek initializers) at -rc1. Linus, would you be OK with
> > > that approach?
> >
> > Not Linus, but I think that's a good idea as it'll reduce the pain for
> > any new users added in other trees.
>
> Yeah, sounds fine to me too.
OK, branch rearranged (#work.lseek-2 now), along with #for-next.
After that we have no_llseek defined to NULL and all its instances
consisting of
1) that define
2) a bunch of initializers of .llseek
3) one mentioning in Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
So if you could run
git grep -l -w no_llseek | grep -v porting.rst | while read i; do
sed -i '/\<no_llseek\>/d' $i
done
just before -rc1, it would deal with the problem with minimal
conflicts during the merge window.
FWIW, right now diffstat of that branch is
Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst | 8 ++++++++
drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c | 1 -
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c | 3 +--
drivers/vfio/vfio.c | 2 +-
fs/coredump.c | 4 ++--
fs/file_table.c | 2 ++
fs/open.c | 2 ++
fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c | 3 +--
fs/read_write.c | 17 +++--------------
fs/splice.c | 10 ++++------
include/linux/fs.h | 2 +-
kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c | 3 +--
12 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
without any changes in file_operations initializers. With 270-odd
more lines removed by the loop above...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists