Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfs tree

[Abhijith Das]

Hi Al/Stephen

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Al Viro" <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Steven Whitehouse" <swhiteho@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Bob Peterson" <rpeterso@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Abhi Das" <adas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 8:31:03 PM
> Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfs tree
> 
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:25:27AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Al,
> > 
> > After merging the vfs tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> > failed like this:
> > 
> > In file included from include/linux/notifier.h:13:0,
> >                  from include/linux/memory_hotplug.h:6,
> >                  from include/linux/mmzone.h:744,
> >                  from include/linux/gfp.h:5,
> >                  from include/linux/slab.h:14,
> >                  from fs/gfs2/file.c:10:
> > fs/gfs2/file.c: In function 'gfs2_file_splice_read':
> > fs/gfs2/file.c:963:19: error: 'struct inode' has no member named 'i_mutex'
> >   mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
> >                    ^
> > include/linux/mutex.h:146:44: note: in definition of macro 'mutex_lock'
> >  #define mutex_lock(lock) mutex_lock_nested(lock, 0)
> >                                             ^
> > fs/gfs2/file.c:967:22: error: 'struct inode' has no member named 'i_mutex'
> >    mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
> >                       ^
> > fs/gfs2/file.c:972:21: error: 'struct inode' has no member named 'i_mutex'
> >   mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
> >                      ^
> > 
> > Caused by commit
> > 
> >   ad10a307a918 ("parallel lookups: actual switch to rwsem")
> > 
> > interacting with commit
> > 
> >   611526756a3d ("gfs2: Use gfs2 wrapper to sync inode before calling
> >   generic_file_splice_read()")
> > 
> > from the gfs2 tree.
> > 
> > I applied the following merge fix patch for today (thanks Al):
> > 
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 11:17:40 +1000
> > Subject: [PATCH] gfs2: fix up for i_mutex -> i_rwsem change
> 
> FWIW, that should go into gfs2 tree - inode_lock()/inode_unlock() had been
> there since the last cycle and they should've been used instead of direct
> access to ->i_mutex.  So this fix will be valid in gfs2 branch.
> 

Apologies for the oversight. I just posted Stephen's patch for linux-gfs2.
Bob, could you push it in asap?

Cheers!
--Abhi