On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2011-01-07 15:22, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:19:33 +0100 Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hmm, I have pulled-in freshly from linux-2.6-block#for-next after you >>> published latest linux-next (next-20110107). >>> So, I guessed the (reported) issue is fixed, now. >> >> No, the commit that caused the warnings was removed when I went back to >> using the block tree from next-20110106. ÂSo it will come back unless >> fixed. > > It is fixed in linux-2.6-block#for-next as-of earlier today, so if Sedat > pulled from there it should be gone. > > -- > Jens Axboe > > I guess 0002 should fix it, its not the case (patch + "big diff" attached). - Sedat - sd@tbox:~/src/linux-2.6/linux-2.6.37/debian/patches$ LC_ALL=C ls -l linux-2.6-block-for-next/ total 44 -rw-r--r-- 1 sd sd 5903 Jan 7 10:33 0001-block-add-internal-hd-part-table-references.patch -rw-r--r-- 1 sd sd 2382 Jan 7 10:33 0002-block-trace-event-block-fix-unassigned-field.patch -rw-r--r-- 1 sd sd 3400 Jan 7 10:33 0003-block-cfq-don-t-use-atomic_t-for-cfq_queue.patch -rw-r--r-- 1 sd sd 3387 Jan 7 10:33 0004-block-cfq-don-t-use-atomic_t-for-cfq_group.patch -rw-r--r-- 1 sd sd 403 Jan 7 10:33 Shortlog -rw-r--r-- 1 sd sd 527 Jan 7 10:33 diffstat -rw-r--r-- 1 sd sd 12797 Jan 7 10:33 linux-2.6-block-for-next.patch
Attachment:
0002-block-trace-event-block-fix-unassigned-field.patch
Description: plain/text
Attachment:
linux-2.6-block-for-next.patch
Description: plain/text
