Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree

[Al Viro]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:33:30AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 7:43 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/14/22 10:10 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > >
> > > I suspect that it would be a good idea to slap
> > > #define no_llseek NULL
> > > into include/linux/fs.h for the merge window, then remove it (and all
> > > stray no_llseek initializers) at -rc1.  Linus, would you be OK with
> > > that approach?
> >
> > Not Linus, but I think that's a good idea as it'll reduce the pain for
> > any new users added in other trees.
> 
> Yeah, sounds fine to me too.

OK, branch rearranged (#work.lseek-2 now), along with #for-next.

After that we have no_llseek defined to NULL and all its instances
consisting of
1) that define
2) a bunch of initializers of .llseek
3) one mentioning in Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst

So if you could run

git grep -l -w no_llseek | grep -v porting.rst | while read i; do
	sed -i '/\<no_llseek\>/d' $i
done

just before -rc1, it would deal with the problem with minimal
conflicts during the merge window.

FWIW, right now diffstat of that branch is
 Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst |  8 ++++++++
 drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c             |  1 -
 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c            |  3 +--
 drivers/vfio/vfio.c                   |  2 +-
 fs/coredump.c                         |  4 ++--
 fs/file_table.c                       |  2 ++
 fs/open.c                             |  2 ++
 fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c                |  3 +--
 fs/read_write.c                       | 17 +++--------------
 fs/splice.c                           | 10 ++++------
 include/linux/fs.h                    |  2 +-
 kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c                 |  3 +--
 12 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

without any changes in file_operations initializers.  With 270-odd
more lines removed by the loop above...