The patch titled Subject: rbtree: fix jffs2 build issue due to renamed __rb_parent_color field has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is rbtree-move-some-implementation-details-from-rbtreeh-to-rbtreec-fix.patch Before you just go and hit "reply", please: a) Consider who else should be cc'ed b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated there every 3-4 working days ------------------------------------------------------ From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: rbtree: fix jffs2 build issue due to renamed __rb_parent_color field ... and clean up the comments to better explain why it's acceptable to do it this way instead of using rb_erase() "properly". Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/jffs2/readinode.c | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff -puN fs/jffs2/readinode.c~rbtree-move-some-implementation-details-from-rbtreeh-to-rbtreec-fix fs/jffs2/readinode.c --- a/fs/jffs2/readinode.c~rbtree-move-some-implementation-details-from-rbtreeh-to-rbtreec-fix +++ a/fs/jffs2/readinode.c @@ -394,8 +394,11 @@ static int jffs2_add_tn_to_tree(struct j } /* Trivial function to remove the last node in the tree. Which by definition - has no right-hand -- so can be removed just by making its only child (if - any) take its place under its parent. */ + has no right-hand child â?? so can be removed just by making its left-hand + child (if any) take its place under its parent. Since this is only done + when we're consuming the whole tree, there's no need to use rb_erase() + and let it worry about adjusting colours and balancing the tree. That + would just be a waste of time. */ static void eat_last(struct rb_root *root, struct rb_node *node) { struct rb_node *parent = rb_parent(node); @@ -412,12 +415,12 @@ static void eat_last(struct rb_root *roo link = &parent->rb_right; *link = node->rb_left; - /* Colour doesn't matter now. Only the parent pointer. */ if (node->rb_left) - node->rb_left->rb_parent_color = node->rb_parent_color; + node->rb_left->__rb_parent_color = node->__rb_parent_color; } -/* We put this in reverse order, so we can just use eat_last */ +/* We put the version tree in reverse order, so we can use the same eat_last() + function that we use to consume the tmpnode tree (tn_root). */ static void ver_insert(struct rb_root *ver_root, struct jffs2_tmp_dnode_info *tn) { struct rb_node **link = &ver_root->rb_node; _ Subject: Subject: rbtree: fix jffs2 build issue due to renamed __rb_parent_color field Patches currently in -mm which might be from dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx are linux-next.patch rbtree-move-some-implementation-details-from-rbtreeh-to-rbtreec-fix.patch -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html