| Message ID | 20090323024404.GA14082@mit.edu |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:44:04PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:17:50PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > I tracked this down to commit 54dc90 in the 2.6.28.8 tree. > > > > I've included it below. Jan and Ted, any ideas on how to fix this > > error? > > 2.6.29 dropped the CONFIG_OCFS2_COMPAT_JBD option; if you enable it, > causes a compile failure in 2.6.28.8. This should fix it... Can you send it in a format that I can apply it in? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 05:13:25PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:44:04PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:17:50PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > I tracked this down to commit 54dc90 in the 2.6.28.8 tree. > > > > > > I've included it below. Jan and Ted, any ideas on how to fix this > > > error? > > > > 2.6.29 dropped the CONFIG_OCFS2_COMPAT_JBD option; if you enable it, > > causes a compile failure in 2.6.28.8. This should fix it... > > Can you send it in a format that I can apply it in? Will do. I have a batch of final patches that went in right before 2.6.29, I'll include it those patches. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:44:04PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:17:50PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > I tracked this down to commit 54dc90 in the 2.6.28.8 tree. > > > > I've included it below. Jan and Ted, any ideas on how to fix this > > error? > > 2.6.29 dropped the CONFIG_OCFS2_COMPAT_JBD option; if you enable it, > causes a compile failure in 2.6.28.8. This should fix it... > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_jbd_compat.h b/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_jbd_compat.h > index b91c78f..268949b 100644 > --- a/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_jbd_compat.h > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_jbd_compat.h > @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ static inline int jbd2_journal_file_inode(handle_t *handle, > return 0; > } > > -static inline int jbd2_journal_begin_ordered_truncate(struct jbd2_inode *inode, > +static inline int jbd2_journal_begin_ordered_truncate(journal_t *journal, > + struct jbd2_inode *inode, > loff_t new_size) > { > return 0; > > > Should I just revert this from the 2.6.28 tree? Or does no one really > > care about ocfs2 in the stable tree? > > I'm not sure how much people will care about CONFIG_OCFS2_COMPAT_JBD, > given that it disappears in 2.6.29, but the above patch should fix > things. CONFIG_OCFS2_COMPAT_JBD is off by default, and existed for a really short time so I don't think it'll matter much if it's broken (obviously fixing it is better). Btw, people definitely use Ocfs2 in the stable tree - I've submitted Ocfs2 patches to stable in the past. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_jbd_compat.h b/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_jbd_compat.h index b91c78f..268949b 100644 --- a/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_jbd_compat.h +++ b/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_jbd_compat.h @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ static inline int jbd2_journal_file_inode(handle_t *handle, return 0; } -static inline int jbd2_journal_begin_ordered_truncate(struct jbd2_inode *inode, +static inline int jbd2_journal_begin_ordered_truncate(journal_t *journal, + struct jbd2_inode *inode, loff_t new_size) { return 0;