On 07/01/2014 01:43 AM, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> FYI, today I failed to build mason/for-linus tree as follows.
>
You were building for 3.15?
> ===============================================================================
> ...
> /home/sat/src/linux-2.6/fs/btrfs/transaction.c: In function 'record_root_in_trans':
> /home/sat/src/linux-2.6/fs/btrfs/transaction.c:293:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'smp_mb__before_atomic' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> smp_mb__before_atomic();
> ^
> /home/sat/src/linux-2.6/fs/btrfs/transaction.c: In function 'commit_fs_roots':
> /home/sat/src/linux-2.6/fs/btrfs/transaction.c:1065:4: error: implicit declaration of function 'smp_mb__after_atomic' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> smp_mb__after_atomic();
> ^
> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> ...
> ===============================================================================
>
> It can be solved by cherry-picking febdbfe.
>
> ===
> commit febdbfe8a91ce0d11939d4940b592eb0dba8d663
> Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu Feb 6 18:16:07 2014 +0100
>
> arch: Prepare for smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
>
> Since the smp_mb__{before,after}*() ops are fundamentally dependent on
> how an arch can implement atomics it doesn't make sense to have 3
> variants of them. They must all be the same.
Yes, or revert:
commit c7548af69d9ef71512eb52d8009521eba3e768fd
Author: Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue Jun 10 13:06:56 2014 -0700
Btrfs: convert smp_mb__{before,after}_clear_bit
The new call is smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic. The __ gives us extra
protection from the atomic rays.
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>
Which is only needed on 3.16+
I should have put this one into a 3.16 only branch, it was a mistake on
my end.
-chris
--
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
