Re: linux-next: Tree for April 1 [BROKEN ubifs when CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y]s

[Jens Axboe]

On 2011-04-04 00:33, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2011-04-04 00:19, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 2011-04-02 13:02, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> cc'ing Jens ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 20:22:41 +0200 Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 18:10 +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc'ing Artem,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:55:52 +0200 Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> With CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y set, I see in my build.log:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> MODPOST 2742 modules
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: "empty_aops" [fs/ubifs/ubifs.ko] undefined!
>>>>>>>>>>>> make[5]: *** [__modpost] Error 1
>>>>>>>>>>>> make[4]: *** [modules] Error 2
>>>>>>>>>>>> make[3]: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>>>>>>>>>>>> make[2]: *** [all] Error 2
>>>>>>>>>>>> make[2]: Leaving directory
>>>>>>>>>>>> `/home/sd/src/linux-2.6/linux-2.6.39-rc1/debian/build/build_i386_none_686-iniza'
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Just FYI:
>>>>>> I contacted Jens last night and he refreshed his for-linus GIT branch.
>>>>>> Adding missing include <linux/fs.h> did not fix the issue.
>>>>>> I am trying with the attached one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Sedat -
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have split the single patch into two, first reflects ther build-error.
>>>>> The second considers {inode,file}_operations have also undefined
>>>>> functions by using "unified" empty_{iops,fops} as used in other fs/*
>>>>> files.
>>>>
>>>> What are these patches against? Not for-next nor my for-linus.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I tested with linux-next (next-20110401) as base and pulled-in your
>>> for-linus GIT branch.
>>
>> Then perhaps there was some merge error. There's no empty_aops defined
>> in my tree in nilfs_mapping_init(), for instance.
>>
>> Are you using an old for-linus?
>>
> 
> I dropped the idea of exporting empty_aops via include/linux/fs.h (&
> changes in fs/inode.c) as it did not work as intended.
> As an alternative I used empty_{aops,iops,fops} only in
> fs/nilfs2/page.c and fs/ubifs/xattr.c where it is only needed (for
> example for aops: static const struct address_space_operations
> empty_aops {}; etc.)

I'm asking one thing, you are replying with something else. The patches
you sent do NOT apply to for-linus.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/