On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Vishal Verma <vishal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-01-06 at 14:31 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> Support badblock checking in all the pmem read paths that do not go
>> through the block layer. This protects info block reads (btt or pfn)
>> as
>> well as data reads to a pmem namespace via a btt instance.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/nvdimm/btt.c | 11 +++++++++++
>> drivers/nvdimm/btt_devs.c | 10 ++++++++++
>> drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c | 10 ++++++++++
>> drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c | 9 +++++++--
>> drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c | 6 ++++++
>> include/linux/nd.h | 2 ++
>> 6 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/btt.c b/drivers/nvdimm/btt.c
>> index efb2c1ceef98..0aca7d7edc05 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nvdimm/btt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/btt.c
>> @@ -1388,6 +1388,7 @@ int nvdimm_namespace_attach_btt(struct
>> nd_namespace_common *ndns)
>> {
>> struct nd_btt *nd_btt = to_nd_btt(ndns->claim);
>> struct nd_region *nd_region;
>> + struct badblocks *bb;
>
> Should we explicitly include badblocks.h here? Same for the two usages
> that follow below..
Since we're not de-referencing it the compiler already has everything
it needs to know from the declaration.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
