On Mon 04-09-17 08:55:33, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz> wrote:
> > On Sun 03-09-17 10:25:55, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> The 0day kbuild robot reports:
> >>
> >> >> drivers//dax/super.c:64:20: error: redefinition of 'fs_dax_get_by_bdev'
> >> struct dax_device *fs_dax_get_by_bdev(struct block_device *bdev)
> >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> In file included from drivers//dax/super.c:22:0:
> >> include/linux/dax.h:76:34: note: previous definition of
> >> 'fs_dax_get_by_bdev' was here
> >> static inline struct dax_device *fs_dax_get_by_bdev(struct
> >> block_device *bdev)
> >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> Protect the definition of fs_dax_get_by_bdev() in drivers/dax/super.c
> >> with an ifdef.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 78f354735081 ("dax: introduce a fs_dax_get_by_bdev() helper")
> >> Cc: Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>
> >> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de>
> >> Cc: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.w...@oracle.com>
> >> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang...@intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com>
> >
> > OK, or you could have both !DAX and DAX implementations in
> > include/linux/dax.h as inline together? It would look a bit more logical to
> > me. But I don't care much. So
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>
>
> My motivation for not doing that is to avoid including blkdev.h from dax.h.
OK, makes sense.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
