On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Arun Sharma wrote:
>
>
> On 2/15/12 3:47 PM, Andrea Righi wrote:
> >>index 74b6a97..b4e45e6 100644
> >>--- a/include/linux/fs.h
> >>+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> >>@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
> >> #include<linux/limits.h>
> >> #include<linux/ioctl.h>
> >> #include<linux/blk_types.h>
> >>-#include<linux/kinterval.h>
> >> #include<linux/types.h>
> >>
> >> /*
> >>@@ -656,7 +655,7 @@ struct address_space {
> >> spinlock_t private_lock; /* for use by the address_space */
> >> struct list_head private_list; /* ditto */
> >> struct address_space *assoc_mapping; /* ditto */
> >>- struct rb_root nocache_tree; /* noreuse cache range tree */
> >>+ void *nocache_tree; /* noreuse cache range tree */
> >> rwlock_t nocache_lock; /* protect the nocache_tree */
> >> } __attribute__((aligned(sizeof(long))));
> >> /*
> >
> >mmh.. a forward declaration of rb_root in fs.h shouldn't be better than
> >this?
> >
>
> Forward declaration works if the type was struct rb_root *. But the
> type in your patch was a struct and the compiler can't figure out
> its size.
>
> include/linux/fs.h:659:17: error: field ‘nocache_tree’ has incomplete type
>
> Did you mean forward declaring struct rb_node instead of rb_root?
>
> If we go down this path, a few more places need fixups (I ignored
> the compiler warnings about casting void * to struct rb_root *).
>
> -Arun
Oh sorry, you're right! nocache_tree is not a pointer inside
address_space, so the compiler must know the size.
mmh... move the definition of the rb_root struct in linux/types.h? or
simply use a rb_root pointer. The (void *) looks a bit scary and too bug
prone.
-Andrea
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
