From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266291AbUFPNIx (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:08:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266287AbUFPNI2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:08:28 -0400 Received: from louise.pinerecords.com ([213.168.176.16]:38021 "EHLO louise.pinerecords.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266291AbUFPNFk (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:05:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:05:23 +0200 From: Tomas Szepe To: Dave Kleikamp Cc: Linus Torvalds , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: JFS compilation fix [was Re: Linux 2.6.7] Message-ID: <20040616130523.GE1571@louise.pinerecords.com> References: <20040616080740.GC23998@louise.pinerecords.com> <1087390524.29047.10.camel@shaggy.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1087390524.29047.10.camel@shaggy.austin.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Jun-16 2004, Wed, 07:55 -0500 Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 03:07, Tomas Szepe wrote: > > Here's a trivial patch to fix JFS compilation in 2.6.7. The error > > only happens in specific configs -- one such config can be found here: > > http://www.pinerecords.com/kala/_nonpub/.config.louise26 > > I don't know why gcc-3.2.2 doesn't complain about this one, as I have > compiled this numerous times. > > Your patch has an unnecessary include of jfs_dtree.h. jfs_dtree.h is > included by jfs_inline.h, and is not needed in jfs_dtree.c. Oh, right. > > I don't have the time to narrow the problem down to the config > > entry that gets jfs_dtree.c to include jfs_dtree.h (jfs_dtree.c > > itself doesn't have any relevat ifdefs). > > My guess is the config entry is CONFIG_JFS_FS. :^) Well, it just so happens that I have two .config files, both listing CONFIG_JFS_FS=m, and without the patch, exactly one of them fails compilation (on the same cluster, distcc gcc 3.4.0). That is why I assumed the include was missing -- the moving of the declaration in my patch was only meant as an extra clean up for bonus points. ;) -- Tomas Szepe