On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > Quoting Guenter Roeck (2013-09-13 12:35:35) > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:52:43PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same': > > > > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function '__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > > > > make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1 > > > > make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... > > > > > > > > Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and > > > > xtensa:allmodconfig. > > > > > > Known issue, cfr. my early warning 10 days ago: > > > > > > "Btrfs is the first user of __put_user_unaligned() outside the compat code, > > > hence now all 32-bit architectures should make sure to implement this, too." > > > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=137820065929216&w=2 > > > > > > and today's thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/12/814 > > > > > > > It doesn't seem right that a patch breaks the build for several platforms, and > > the problem is then blamed on the platform code instead of the code that is > > introducing the problem. > > > > Maybe we should add BROKEN to the btrfs dependencies for the affected platforms. > > After all, it _is_ broken. > > I'm happy to fix this with a bigger put of the info struct, just > let me know the preferred arch-happy solution. > Me not either. The only requirement I would have is that it should not break a build. Of course, it would be even better if it would actually work ;-). Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
