Re: [PATCH] dm cache: Avoid conflicting remove_mapping() in mq policy
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:31:18AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Is this patch going anyhere ? The problem breaks the sparc32:allmodconfig > build, > so it would be useful to get it fixed. We're pulling together a batch of patches today, including this one. Alasdair -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] dm cache: Avoid conflicting remove_mapping() in mq policy
On 07/26/2013 12:57 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On sparc32, which includes from :
drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c:962:13: error: conflicting types for
'remove_mapping'
include/linux/swap.h:285:12: note: previous declaration of 'remove_mapping' was
here
As mq_remove_mapping() already exists, and the local remove_mapping() is
used only once, inline it manually to avoid the conflict.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
Is this patch going anyhere ? The problem breaks the sparc32:allmodconfig build,
so it would be useful to get it fixed.
Thanks,
Guenter
---
I think this is also needed on hexagon, which includes from
.
drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c | 16 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c b/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c
index dc112a7..4296155 100644
--- a/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c
+++ b/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c
@@ -959,23 +959,21 @@ out:
return r;
}
-static void remove_mapping(struct mq_policy *mq, dm_oblock_t oblock)
+static void mq_remove_mapping(struct dm_cache_policy *p, dm_oblock_t oblock)
{
- struct entry *e = hash_lookup(mq, oblock);
+ struct mq_policy *mq = to_mq_policy(p);
+ struct entry *e;
+
+ mutex_lock(>lock);
+
+ e = hash_lookup(mq, oblock);
BUG_ON(!e || !e->in_cache);
del(mq, e);
e->in_cache = false;
push(mq, e);
-}
-static void mq_remove_mapping(struct dm_cache_policy *p, dm_oblock_t oblock)
-{
- struct mq_policy *mq = to_mq_policy(p);
-
- mutex_lock(>lock);
- remove_mapping(mq, oblock);
mutex_unlock(>lock);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] dm cache: Avoid conflicting remove_mapping() in mq policy
On 07/26/2013 12:57 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On sparc32, which includes linux/swap.h from asm/pgtable_32.h:
drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c:962:13: error: conflicting types for
'remove_mapping'
include/linux/swap.h:285:12: note: previous declaration of 'remove_mapping' was
here
As mq_remove_mapping() already exists, and the local remove_mapping() is
used only once, inline it manually to avoid the conflict.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven ge...@linux-m68k.org
Is this patch going anyhere ? The problem breaks the sparc32:allmodconfig build,
so it would be useful to get it fixed.
Thanks,
Guenter
---
I think this is also needed on hexagon, which includes linux/swap.h from
asm/pgtable.h.
drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c | 16 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c b/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c
index dc112a7..4296155 100644
--- a/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c
+++ b/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c
@@ -959,23 +959,21 @@ out:
return r;
}
-static void remove_mapping(struct mq_policy *mq, dm_oblock_t oblock)
+static void mq_remove_mapping(struct dm_cache_policy *p, dm_oblock_t oblock)
{
- struct entry *e = hash_lookup(mq, oblock);
+ struct mq_policy *mq = to_mq_policy(p);
+ struct entry *e;
+
+ mutex_lock(mq-lock);
+
+ e = hash_lookup(mq, oblock);
BUG_ON(!e || !e-in_cache);
del(mq, e);
e-in_cache = false;
push(mq, e);
-}
-static void mq_remove_mapping(struct dm_cache_policy *p, dm_oblock_t oblock)
-{
- struct mq_policy *mq = to_mq_policy(p);
-
- mutex_lock(mq-lock);
- remove_mapping(mq, oblock);
mutex_unlock(mq-lock);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] dm cache: Avoid conflicting remove_mapping() in mq policy
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:31:18AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: Is this patch going anyhere ? The problem breaks the sparc32:allmodconfig build, so it would be useful to get it fixed. We're pulling together a batch of patches today, including this one. Alasdair -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH] dm cache: Avoid conflicting remove_mapping() in mq policy
On sparc32, which includes from :
drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c:962:13: error: conflicting types for
'remove_mapping'
include/linux/swap.h:285:12: note: previous declaration of 'remove_mapping' was
here
As mq_remove_mapping() already exists, and the local remove_mapping() is
used only once, inline it manually to avoid the conflict.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
---
I think this is also needed on hexagon, which includes from
.
drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c | 16 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c b/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c
index dc112a7..4296155 100644
--- a/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c
+++ b/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c
@@ -959,23 +959,21 @@ out:
return r;
}
-static void remove_mapping(struct mq_policy *mq, dm_oblock_t oblock)
+static void mq_remove_mapping(struct dm_cache_policy *p, dm_oblock_t oblock)
{
- struct entry *e = hash_lookup(mq, oblock);
+ struct mq_policy *mq = to_mq_policy(p);
+ struct entry *e;
+
+ mutex_lock(>lock);
+
+ e = hash_lookup(mq, oblock);
BUG_ON(!e || !e->in_cache);
del(mq, e);
e->in_cache = false;
push(mq, e);
-}
-static void mq_remove_mapping(struct dm_cache_policy *p, dm_oblock_t oblock)
-{
- struct mq_policy *mq = to_mq_policy(p);
-
- mutex_lock(>lock);
- remove_mapping(mq, oblock);
mutex_unlock(>lock);
}
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH] dm cache: Avoid conflicting remove_mapping() in mq policy
On sparc32, which includes linux/swap.h from asm/pgtable_32.h:
drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c:962:13: error: conflicting types for
'remove_mapping'
include/linux/swap.h:285:12: note: previous declaration of 'remove_mapping' was
here
As mq_remove_mapping() already exists, and the local remove_mapping() is
used only once, inline it manually to avoid the conflict.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven ge...@linux-m68k.org
---
I think this is also needed on hexagon, which includes linux/swap.h from
asm/pgtable.h.
drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c | 16 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c b/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c
index dc112a7..4296155 100644
--- a/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c
+++ b/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c
@@ -959,23 +959,21 @@ out:
return r;
}
-static void remove_mapping(struct mq_policy *mq, dm_oblock_t oblock)
+static void mq_remove_mapping(struct dm_cache_policy *p, dm_oblock_t oblock)
{
- struct entry *e = hash_lookup(mq, oblock);
+ struct mq_policy *mq = to_mq_policy(p);
+ struct entry *e;
+
+ mutex_lock(mq-lock);
+
+ e = hash_lookup(mq, oblock);
BUG_ON(!e || !e-in_cache);
del(mq, e);
e-in_cache = false;
push(mq, e);
-}
-static void mq_remove_mapping(struct dm_cache_policy *p, dm_oblock_t oblock)
-{
- struct mq_policy *mq = to_mq_policy(p);
-
- mutex_lock(mq-lock);
- remove_mapping(mq, oblock);
mutex_unlock(mq-lock);
}
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
