On 12/14/20 1:09 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:01:49 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After merging the block tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
>> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>>
>> fs/btrfs/zoned.c: In function 'btrfs_get_dev_zone_info':
>> fs/btrfs/zoned.c:168:21: error: 'struct block_device' has no member named 'bd_part'; did you mean 'bd_partno'?
>> 168 | nr_sectors = bdev->bd_part->nr_sects;
>> | ^~~~~~~
>> | bd_partno
>> fs/btrfs/zoned.c: In function 'btrfs_sb_log_location_bdev':
>> fs/btrfs/zoned.c:508:21: error: 'struct block_device' has no member named 'bd_part'; did you mean 'bd_partno'?
>> 508 | nr_sectors = bdev->bd_part->nr_sects;
>> | ^~~~~~~
>> | bd_partno
>> fs/btrfs/zoned.c: In function 'btrfs_reset_sb_log_zones':
>> fs/btrfs/zoned.c:606:21: error: 'struct block_device' has no member named 'bd_part'; did you mean 'bd_partno'?
>> 606 | nr_sectors = bdev->bd_part->nr_sects;
>> | ^~~~~~~
>> | bd_partno
>>
>> Caused by commits
>>
>> a782483cc1f8 ("block: remove the nr_sects field in struct hd_struct")
>> 0d02129e76ed ("block: merge struct block_device and struct hd_struct")
>>
>> interacting with commits
>>
>> ab3ea6d0e65c ("btrfs: get zone information of zoned block devices")
>> 1a4b440a1c2b ("btrfs: implement log-structured superblock for ZONED mode")
>>
>> from the btrfs tree.
>>
>> I applied the following merge fix patch (which may, or may not, be
>> correct but fixes the build).
>>
>> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:55:04 +1100
>> Subject: [PATCH] fixup for "block: merge struct block_device and struct
>> hd_struct"
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
>> index 155545180046..c38846659019 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
>> @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ int btrfs_get_dev_zone_info(struct btrfs_device *device)
>> if (!zone_info)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> - nr_sectors = bdev->bd_part->nr_sects;
>> + nr_sectors = bdev_nr_sectors(bdev);
>> zone_sectors = bdev_zone_sectors(bdev);
>> /* Check if it's power of 2 (see is_power_of_2) */
>> ASSERT(zone_sectors != 0 && (zone_sectors & (zone_sectors - 1)) == 0);
>> @@ -505,7 +505,7 @@ int btrfs_sb_log_location_bdev(struct block_device *bdev, int mirror, int rw,
>> return -EINVAL;
>> zone_size = zone_sectors << SECTOR_SHIFT;
>> zone_sectors_shift = ilog2(zone_sectors);
>> - nr_sectors = bdev->bd_part->nr_sects;
>> + nr_sectors = bdev_nr_sectors(bdev);
>> nr_zones = nr_sectors >> zone_sectors_shift;
>>
>> sb_zone = sb_zone_number(zone_sectors_shift + SECTOR_SHIFT, mirror);
>> @@ -603,7 +603,7 @@ int btrfs_reset_sb_log_zones(struct block_device *bdev, int mirror)
>>
>> zone_sectors = bdev_zone_sectors(bdev);
>> zone_sectors_shift = ilog2(zone_sectors);
>> - nr_sectors = bdev->bd_part->nr_sects;
>> + nr_sectors = bdev_nr_sectors(bdev);
>> nr_zones = nr_sectors >> zone_sectors_shift;
>>
>> sb_zone = sb_zone_number(zone_sectors_shift + SECTOR_SHIFT, mirror);
>
> Just a reminder that I am still applying the above merge fix.
I sent in my core changes, but they haven't been pulled yet. So I guess
we're dealing with a timing situation... David, did you send in the btrfs
pull yet?
--
Jens Axboe
