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

[Chao Yu]

Hi Stephen,

Sorry, yesterday I missed this email due to my email filter.

On 2018/8/1 23:07, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Chao,
> 
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:09:13 +0800 Chao Yu <yuchao0@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Xiang has submitted several patches as below to fix compiling error on -next
>> tree, could you consider to merge those temporary fixes into -next after merging
>> staging-next's updates, and reenable CONFIG_EROFS_FS for further integrity
>> compiling and test?
>>
>> staging: erofs: fix superblock/inode flags (MS_RDONLY -> SB_RDONLY, S_NOATIME)
>> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/2018-July/000282.html
>>
>> staging: erofs: remove RADIX_TREE_EXCEPTIONAL_{ENTRY, SHIFT}
>> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/2018-July/000283.html
>>
>> staging: erofs: update .mount and .remount_sb
>> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/2018-July/000285.html
> 
> OK, I will apply those tomorrow (actually later today :-)) and and stop
> disabling CONFIG_EROFS_FS.

OK, thanks for doing that, I and Xiang will keep an eye on compile result.

> 
>> BTW, for this condition that erofs was not covered by some common vfs
>> stuff changes in other one's tree, who should take care of those
>> missing fixes during coming next merge window?
> 
> It might be easiest for Greg to add the disabling CONFIG_EROFS_FS patch
> to the staging tree itself for his first pull request during the merge
> window and then send a second pull request (after the vfs and maybe the
> Xarray stuff has been merged by Linus) with these patches followed by a
> revert of the disabling patch.

Thanks for the advice, I think that's a good way to solve the issue, let me send
a patch to disable erofs compiling temporarily to avoid conflict during merge
window. :)

Thanks,

>