Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the nfsd and xfs trees

From: Dave Chinner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:58:48 +1100

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:36:46PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Bruce, David,
> 
> After merging the nfsd and xfs trees, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> 
> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_export.c: In function 'xfs_fs_nfs_commit_metadata':
> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_export.c:230: error: 'XFS_LOG_FORCE' undeclared (first use in this function)
> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_export.c:230: error: too many arguments to function '_xfs_log_force'
> 
> Caused by commit 978ebd97d1426d5708d3f353179ab81f191a7eeb
> ("xfs_export_operations.commit_metadata") from the nfsd tree interacting
> with commit a14a348bff2f99471a28e5928eb6801224c053d8 ("xfs: cleanup up
> xfs_log_force calling conventions") from the xfs tree.

I was waiting for this email to come in. ;)

> I applied the following patch (which may not be correct) for today (and
> can keep it as a merge fixup as necessary):
> 
> From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:20:01 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] nfsd: fixup for _xfs_log_force API change
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_export.c |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_export.c b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_export.c
> index 8f4d707..846b75a 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_export.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_export.c
> @@ -226,8 +226,8 @@ xfs_fs_nfs_commit_metadata(
>  
>  	xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED);
>  	if (xfs_ipincount(ip)) {
> -		error = _xfs_log_force(mp, ip->i_itemp->ili_last_lsn,
> -				XFS_LOG_FORCE | XFS_LOG_SYNC, NULL);
> +		error = _xfs_log_force_lsn(mp, ip->i_itemp->ili_last_lsn,
> +				XFS_LOG_SYNC, NULL);
>  	}
>  	xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED);

Yes, that is the correct fix. Thanks for that, Stephen. Consider it:

Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <[email-masked]>

Іt would be good if you could keep it as a merge fixup - we don't
really want to have to pull the -next NFS tree into the XFS tree or vice
versa until one or the other is upstream....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
[email-masked]