On Wed, Nov 26 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Jens,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > In file included from block/blk-core.c:31:
> > include/trace/block.h:9:15: error: macro "DEFINE_TRACE" passed 3 arguments, but takes just 1
> > In file included from block/blk-core.c:31:
> > include/trace/block.h:7: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
> > include/trace/block.h:7: warning: type defaults to 'int' in declaration of 'DEFINE_TRACE'
> > 
> > and many more.  This is caused by commit 
> > 714d010b5c249c2e9282515e0a2309a61ababbf4 ("blktrace: port to 
> > tracepoints") interacting with commit 
> > 7e066fb870fcd1025ec3ba7bbde5d541094f4ce1 ("tracepoints: add 
> > DECLARE_TRACE () and DEFINE_TRACE()") which entered linux-next for 
> > the first time today via the ftrace tree. This latter commit has 
> > changed the tracepoints API.
> > 
> > I will drop the block tree for today.  I am not sure of the way forward.
> 
> hm, i think that might be interaction between ftrace tree updates and 
> blktrace?
> 
> Jens, would it be fine with you if we created a new 
> tip/tracing/blktrace branch and picked up your changes and kept it all 
> uptodate and merged with the ftrace tree? It should merge fine with 
> other bits of the block tree, right? (the tracepoints are in rather 
> stable spots of the code i think)
> 
> the other direction (you merging ftrace bits) doesnt look too hot, 
> you'd have to pick up:
> 
>    95 files changed, 5308 insertions(+), 1603 deletions(-)

Lets do that, it's just a single patch here from Arnaldo. I have
attached it to this email.

-- 
Jens Axboe