On 07/01/2014 01:43 AM, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > Hi Chris, > > FYI, today I failed to build mason/for-linus tree as follows. >
You were building for 3.15? > =============================================================================== > ... > /home/sat/src/linux-2.6/fs/btrfs/transaction.c: In function > 'record_root_in_trans': > /home/sat/src/linux-2.6/fs/btrfs/transaction.c:293:3: error: implicit > declaration of function 'smp_mb__before_atomic' > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > smp_mb__before_atomic(); > ^ > /home/sat/src/linux-2.6/fs/btrfs/transaction.c: In function 'commit_fs_roots': > /home/sat/src/linux-2.6/fs/btrfs/transaction.c:1065:4: error: implicit > declaration of function 'smp_mb__after_atomic' > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > smp_mb__after_atomic(); > ^ > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > ... > =============================================================================== > > It can be solved by cherry-picking febdbfe. > > === > commit febdbfe8a91ce0d11939d4940b592eb0dba8d663 > Author: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> > Date: Thu Feb 6 18:16:07 2014 +0100 > > arch: Prepare for smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() > > Since the smp_mb__{before,after}*() ops are fundamentally dependent on > how an arch can implement atomics it doesn't make sense to have 3 > variants of them. They must all be the same. Yes, or revert: commit c7548af69d9ef71512eb52d8009521eba3e768fd Author: Chris Mason <[email protected]> Date: Tue Jun 10 13:06:56 2014 -0700 Btrfs: convert smp_mb__{before,after}_clear_bit The new call is smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic. The __ gives us extra protection from the atomic rays. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <[email protected]> Which is only needed on 3.16+ I should have put this one into a 3.16 only branch, it was a mistake on my end. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
