On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:32:23AM -0500, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 12:53 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > After merging the fsnotify tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > fs/notify/mark.c: In function 'fsnotify_add_mark':
> > fs/notify/mark.c:230: error: 'struct fsnotify_group' has no member named 'fanotify_data'
> >
> > Caused by commit 0ed64ab6b338e4269c9f25de83781619ecd624f1 ("fsnotify:
> > code and error path cleanup in fsnotify_add_mark"). This build has
> > CONFIG_FANOTIFY not set.
> >
> > I have used the fsnotify tree from next-20101109 for today.
>
> I wasn't actually that commit it was:
>
> 5876b30fc2c91d67386f91da62b14f159d7bb41f ("fanotify: Do check against
> max_marks and increase number of group marks atomically")
>
> Lino, I knew there was a reason I was happy with the small race. Would
> you like to take another stab or should I just revert?
>
> -Eric
>
Damn, sorry for that.
Please revert it Eric. But we should somehow avoid this race. What about
making max_marks a generic groups attribute?
Lino
--
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
