linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the btrfs tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <95af7735-cb97-491c-be22-8e9759f4720f@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:58:58 +1030
From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.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 btrfs tree



在 2024/10/24 08:27, Stephen Rothwell 写道:
> Hi all,
> 
> After merging the btrfs tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
> 
> fs/btrfs/super.c: In function 'btrfs_reconfigure_for_mount':
> fs/btrfs/super.c:2011:56: error: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Werror=parentheses]
>   2011 |         if (!fc->oldapi || !(fc->sb_flags & SB_RDONLY) && (mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags & SB_RDONLY))
>        |                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> 
> Caused by commit
> 
>    4642e430c55b ("btrfs: fix mount failure due to remount races")

My bad, in fact a new patch is going to remove the oldapi check 
completely as newer mount using new API will break the per-subvolume 
RO/RW again.

Thus a new patch is needed to remove the oldapi check first 
(https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/e1a70aa6dd0fc9ba6c7050a5befb3bd5b75a1377.1729664802.git.wqu@suse.com/), 
then the newer v2 patch 
(https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/08e45ca0-5ed9-4684-940f-1e956a936628@gmx.com/T/#t) 
will be completely fine.

Thanks,
Qu
> 
> I have used the btrfs tree from next-20241023 for today.
>