On 2/8/16 5:33 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > As it uses buffer verifiers that only exist when CONFIG_XFS_RT=y. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Note: I will fold this back into the original patch that caused > this build regression and rebuild the for-next tree. > > fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c > index 23ad143..1dc0e14 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c > @@ -2472,11 +2472,13 @@ xlog_recover_validate_buf_type( > } > bp->b_ops = &xfs_sb_buf_ops; > break; > +#ifdef CONFIG_XFS_RT > case XFS_BLFT_RTBITMAP_BUF: > case XFS_BLFT_RTSUMMARY_BUF: > /* no magic numbers for verification of RT buffers */ > bp->b_ops = &xfs_rtbuf_ops; > break; > +#endif /* CONFIG_XFS_RT */ > default: > xfs_warn(mp, "Unknown buffer type %d!", > xfs_blft_from_flags(buf_f)); > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
