On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 17:58:18 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 15:46:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Martin Schwidefsky
> > <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > please pull from the 'for-linus' branch of
> > >
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git for-linus
> >
> > So my conflict resolution looks different from the one Stephen posted,
> > which may be due to various reasons, ranging from "linux-next has
> > other things that conflict" to just "I didn't notice some semantic
> > conflict since unlike linux-next I don't build for s390".
> >
> > Regardless, you should check my current -git tree just to verify, and
> > send me a patch if I screwed something up.
>
> At least part of the difference is the following merge fix patch I have
> been carrying. It is needed due to a build failure.
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:51:32 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] s390: fix up for "blk-mq: switch ->queue_rq return value to
> blk_status_t"
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
> index 42018a20f2b7..0071febac9e6 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
> @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ struct scm_queue {
> spinlock_t lock;
> };
>
> -static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> +static blk_status_t scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> const struct blk_mq_queue_data *qd)
> {
> struct scm_device *scmdev = hctx->queue->queuedata;
> @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> spin_lock(&sq->lock);
> if (!scm_permit_request(bdev, req)) {
> spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
> + return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
> }
>
> scmrq = sq->scmrq;
> @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> if (!scmrq) {
> SCM_LOG(5, "no request");
> spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
> + return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
> }
> scm_request_init(bdev, scmrq);
> sq->scmrq = scmrq;
> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
>
> sq->scmrq = NULL;
> spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
> + return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
> }
> blk_mq_start_request(req);
>
> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> sq->scmrq = NULL;
> }
> spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_OK;
> + return BLK_STS_OK;
> }
>
> static int scm_blk_init_hctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, void *data,
This is the same patch I came up with to get it to compile. I asked
Sebastian to verify that the driver actually works with these changes.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
