Re: [GIT PULL] s390 patches for 4.13 merge window

[Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>]

Hi Linus,

On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 15:46:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Martin Schwidefsky
> <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> 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@canb.auug.org.au>
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@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 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,
-- 
2.11.0

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell