On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 11:11 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> fs/ceph/addr.c: In function 'ceph_set_page_dirty':
> fs/ceph/addr.c:105: error: 'BDI_RECLAIMABLE' undeclared (first use in this function)
>
> Commit 69f0302c4bd28846c3251e25976a2336cd6a6e6f ("VM: Split out the
> accounting of unstable writes from BDI_RECLAIMABLE") from the nfs tree
> interacts with commit 1d3576fd10f0d7a104204267b81cf84a07028dad ("ceph:
> address space operations") from the ceph tree.
>
> I applied the following patch for today (I am not sure it is correct) and
> will keep it as a merge fixup as necessary.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:04:27 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] ceph: update for BDI_RECLAIMABLE change
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/ceph/addr.c | 3 +--
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/addr.c b/fs/ceph/addr.c
> index bf53581..eab46b0 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/addr.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/addr.c
> @@ -101,8 +101,7 @@ static int ceph_set_page_dirty(struct page *page)
>
> if (mapping_cap_account_dirty(mapping)) {
> __inc_zone_page_state(page, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> - __inc_bdi_stat(mapping->backing_dev_info,
> - BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> + __inc_bdi_stat(mapping->backing_dev_info, BDI_DIRTY);
> task_io_account_write(PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
> }
> radix_tree_tag_set(&mapping->page_tree,
The patch itself looks correct to me.
How would you like me to proceed? Should I revert the VM changes from
the NFS linux-next tree, or would you be OK with keeping the above patch
for now?
Cheers
Trond
--
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
