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

[Sedat Dilek]

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>

Oh, I am sorry. I checkout your tree and adapt.

- Sedat -
--
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/