Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:49:15 +1100 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the aio tree |
| |
Hi Ben,
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:55:15 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:18:21 -0500 Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:25:31AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:23:16PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Via the aio tree (git://git.kvack.org/~bcrl/aio-next.git#master) added > > > > in July 2013 at Ben's request. The code was added to the aio tree in > > > > Jan 12 (my time), but has never been in a published linux-next tree due > > > > to the above build problem (I back out to the previous days version of > > > > the aio tree). > > > > > > Well, it's code Ben posted a few days ago, which to say it mildly is > > > rather controversial. It's cetainly not 4.5 material. > > > > It still needs the exposure. > > If it is not destined for v4.5, then it should not (yet) be in > linux-next. It should wait until after v4.5-rc1 is released (the merge > window closes). I would also argue that if the functionality itself is > still under active review (and I haven't competely followed the > discussion so I don't know where that is up to, but Christoph, at > least, seems not completely convinced), then it should also not yet be > in linux-next.
OK, so at this point (just to get rid of the build failure I have done this:
I have reset the aio tree head to commit
b47275df9e1c ("aio: add support for aio poll via aio thread helper")
and then cherry-picked the following commits on top:
fb2e69217129 ("aio: Fix compile error due to unexpected use of cmpxchg()") 0964acffc614 ("aio: revert addition of io_send_sig() in generic_write_checks")
> > As for the build failure, it's a bug in the arch __get_user() implementation > > that needs to be fixed. __get_user() should really be able to handle 64 bit > > types. > > Yeah, it is a bit weird.
Well, you need to negotiate that with the affected architectures.
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
| |