On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 9:00 PM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 01:55:51PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > fs/xfs/xfs_exchrange.c: In function 'xfs_ioc_commit_range':
> > fs/xfs/xfs_exchrange.c:938:19: error: 'struct fd' has no member named 'file'
> > 938 | if (!file1.file)
> > | ^
> > fs/xfs/xfs_exchrange.c:940:26: error: 'struct fd' has no member named 'file'
> > 940 | fxr.file1 = file1.file;
> > | ^
> >
> > Caused by commit
> >
> > 1da91ea87aef ("introduce fd_file(), convert all accessors to it.")
> >
> > interacting with commit
> >
> > 398597c3ef7f ("xfs: introduce new file range commit ioctls")
> >
> > I have applied the following patch for today.
> >
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 13:53:35 +1000
> > Subject: [PATCH] fix up 3 for "introduce fd_file(), convert all accessors to
> > it."
> >
> > interacting with commit "xfs: introduce new file range commit ioctls"
> > from the xfs tree.
>
> ... and the same for io_uring/rsrc.c, conflict with "io_uring: add IORING_REGISTER_COPY_BUFFERS method".
>
> FWIW, that (sub)series is in viro/vfs.git#for-next - I forgot to put it
> there, so when bpf tree reorgs had lost their branch on top of that thing,
> the conflict fixes got dropped from -next. Sorry... ;-/
Should I take out the following from bpf-next/for-next for now?
a8e40fd0f127 ("Merge branch 'bpf-next/struct_fd' into for-next")
Al, currently I'm basing my patches on top of your stable-struct_fd
branch. If you need to update it, I think that's fine, I can rebase on
top of the updated branch, given my patches weren't yet merged
anywhere. Let me know.
