On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 11:09:13AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 3:55 AM kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git pending-fixes > > head: 47fa0de9b07c6214b57458e965646a3e25656b69 > > commit: 5c0ea18d992fffc948e087c0002560d747e6edd9 [207/319] btrfs: use sector numbers as keys for the dirty extents xarray > > config: arm-randconfig-002-20241009 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241009/202410091038.SI34ZULQ-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config) > > compiler: clang version 15.0.7 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 8dfdcc7b7bf66834a761bd8de445840ef68e4d1a) > > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241009/202410091038.SI34ZULQ-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/reproduce) > > > > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of > > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags > > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202410091038.SI34ZULQ-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > >> fs/btrfs/qgroup.c:2014:6: error: use of undeclared identifier 'bytenr' > > if (bytenr >= MAX_LFS_FILESIZE) { > > Ah this should be record->bytenr. > The issue is actually fixed in a later patch of the same patchset, > where bytenr is a function argument. > > I can update the patch but then it will require updating the patches > that come next from the same patchset and rebasing the for-next > branch. > And I see it's already in the next-fixes branch. > > David, how do you prefer to proceed here? Do you want me to fix this > and resend the patchset? No need to resend, I'll fix it locally, the patch in next-fixes was the old one so I'll sync it with what's in our development for-next (and also check the others just in case). I'll also check and update all the branches involved in the for-next pulled by linux-next.
