On Friday September 9, babydr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hello Neil ,
>
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Friday September 9, babydr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Neil , I patched all were successful . But after a
> >> make clean ; make
> >> I get ... Tia , JimL
> >> ..snip...
> >> gcc -Wall -Werror -Wstrict-prototypes -DCONFFILE=\"/etc/mdadm.conf\" -ggdb -DSendmail=\""/usr/sbin/sendmail -t"\" -c -o Assemble.o Assemble.c
> >> Assemble.c: In function `Assemble':
> >> Assemble.c:323: error: `nextspare' undeclared (first use in this function)
> >> Assemble.c:323: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> >> Assemble.c:323: error: for each function it appears in.)
> >> make: *** [Assemble.o] Error 1
> >
> > That's odd, as the patch contained:
> >
> > --- ./Assemble.c~current~ 2005-09-05 10:55:01.000000000 +1000
> > +++ ./Assemble.c 2005-09-09 16:24:50.000000000 +1000
> > @@ -119,6 +119,7 @@ int Assemble(struct supertype *st, char
> > struct mdinfo info;
> > struct mddev_ident_s ident2;
> > char *avail;
> > + int nextspare = 0;
> >
> > vers = md_get_version(mdfd);
> > if (vers <= 0) {
>
> What was missing from my 2.0 sources was the 'char *avail;'
> and patching failed on that hunk , Which totally missed .
The 'avail' is for a different independent patch which fixes a raid10
issue.
You can ignore it.
> So I hand entered as you suggested the above bits .
>
> Now it failes on a Warning (???) .
I guess you didn't ignore it.
Just add the 'int next_spare = 0;' to what you had. Don't worry that
the 'char *avail;' isn't there.
> Never heard of failures on warnings before .
That would be because of the '-Werror' I put in there to make sure I
don't get lazy about warnings.
>
> gcc -Wall -Werror -Wstrict-prototypes -DCONFFILE=\"/etc/mdadm.conf\" -ggdb -DSendmail=\""/usr/sbin/sendmail -t"\" -c -o Assemble.o Assemble.c
> Assemble.c: In function `Assemble':
> Assemble.c:121: warning: unused variable `avail'
> make: *** [Assemble.o] Error 1
>
> Would you please cut a source set to the kernel site >
> Say as version 2.0a so I can see the diffs against the
> sources I have ? Tia , JimL
I hope to do a 2.1 next week. Here is the current complete patch
against 2.0.
NeilBrown
Attachment:
mdadm.diff
Description: Binary data
