lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: linux-next: Tree for April 1 [BROKEN ubifs when CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y]s
    On 2011-04-04 00:19, Sedat Dilek wrote:
    > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com> wrote:
    >> On 2011-04-02 13:02, Sedat Dilek wrote:
    >>> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@googlemail.com> wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
    >>>>> cc'ing Jens ...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 20:22:41 +0200 Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@googlemail.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> 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@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Cc'ing Artem,
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:55:52 +0200 Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@googlemail.com> 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?

    --
    Jens Axboe



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-04-04 00:25    [W:0.024 / U:0.432 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site