On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:19:25 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:53:12 +1100
>
> > Hi Steve, Dave,
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:23:18 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> > >
> > > fs/cifs/cifsfs.c: In function 'cifs_show_options':
> > > fs/cifs/cifsfs.c:363: error: 'NIP6_FMT' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > > fs/cifs/cifsfs.c:363: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> > > fs/cifs/cifsfs.c:363: error: for each function it appears in.)
> > > fs/cifs/cifsfs.c:364: error: implicit declaration of function 'NIP6'
> > >
> > > Caused by the interaction of commits
> > > b189db5d299c6824780af5590564ff608adb3dea ("net: remove NIP6(), NIP6_FMT,
> > > NIP6_SEQFMT and final users") from the net tree and
> > > 20c4eef4f817ff65337e2fb3f1f5df52eeca09eb ("cifs: display addr and
> > > prefixpath options in /proc/mounts") from the cifs tree.
> >
> > Today I have fixed this by applying a merge fix patch (see below) and
> > will carry this as necessary.
>
> Looks good, thanks Stephen.
Looks good to me too -- I don't think we have any more changes in the
CIFS ipv6 address formatting code coming too soon...
Still, is there some reason that NIP6/NIPQUAD stuff needs to be removed
at the same time as we add %pI4/%pI6? An period where the old NIP*
defines still live in the tree seems like a reasonable thing.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
