staging: erofs: disable compiling temporarile

From: Chao Yu <yuchao0 at huawei.com>

As Stephen Rothwell reported:

"After merging the staging tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:

drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: In function 'erofs_read_super':
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:343:17: error: 'MS_RDONLY' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'IS_RDONLY'?

  sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY | MS_NOATIME;
                 ^~~~~~~~~
                 IS_RDONLY
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:343:17: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:343:29: error: 'MS_NOATIME' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'S_NOATIME'?
  sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY | MS_NOATIME;
                             ^~~~~~~~~~
                             S_NOATIME
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: In function 'erofs_mount':
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:501:10: warning: passing argument 5 of 'mount_bdev' makes integer from pointer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
   &priv, erofs_fill_super);
          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In file included from include/linux/buffer_head.h:12:0,
from drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:14:
include/linux/fs.h:2151:23: note: expected 'size_t {aka long unsigned int}' but argument is of type 'int (*)(struct super_block *, void *, int)'
extern struct dentry *mount_bdev(struct file_system_type *fs_type,

                       ^~~~~~~~~~
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:500:9: error: too few arguments to function 'mount_bdev'
  return mount_bdev(fs_type, flags, dev_name,
         ^~~~~~~~~~

In file included from include/linux/buffer_head.h:12:0,
from drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:14:
include/linux/fs.h:2151:23: note: declared here
extern struct dentry *mount_bdev(struct file_system_type *fs_type,

                       ^~~~~~~~~~
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: At top level:
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:518:20: error: initialization from incompatible pointer type [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
  .mount          = erofs_mount,
                    ^~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:518:20: note: (near initialization for 'erofs_fs_type.mount')
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: In function 'erofs_remount':
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:630:12: error: 'MS_RDONLY' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'IS_RDONLY'?
  *flags |= MS_RDONLY;
            ^~~~~~~~~
            IS_RDONLY
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: At top level:
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:640:16: error: initialization from incompatible pointer type [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
  .remount_fs = erofs_remount,
                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~

Caused by various commits creating erofs in the staging tree interacting with various commits redoing the mount infrastructure in the vfs tree.

I have disabed CONFIG_EROFS_FS for now:"

The reason of compiling error is:

Since -next collects and merges developing patches including common vfs stuff from multi-trees, but those patches didn't cover erofs, such as:

('vfs: Suppress MS_* flag defs within the kernel unless explicitly enabled")
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=109b45090d7d3ce2797bb1ef7f70eead5bfe0ff3

("vfs: Require specification of size of mount data for internal mounts")
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=0a191e4505a4f255e6513b49426213da69bf0e80

Above vfs related patches has not been merged in staging tree, if we submit those erofs patches to staging mailing list and after including them in staging-{test,nexts} tree, it can easily cause compiling error.

We worked out some patches to adjust those vfs change, but now we just submit them to -next tree temporarily to avoid compiling error.

For potentail conflict in between erofs and vfs changes in incoming merge window, Stephen suggested that we can disable CONFIG_EROFS_FS temporarily to pass merge window, and after that we can do restore by reenabling CONFIG_EROFS_FS and applying those fixing patches. Also Greg confirmed this solution.

So, let's disable compiling erofs for a while.

Suggested-by Stephen Rothwell <sfr at canb.auug.org.au>

Signed-off-by Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25 at huawei.com>

Reviewed-by Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25 at huawei.com>

Signed-off-by Chao Yu <yuchao0 at huawei.com>

---
v3: remain "depends on BLOCK".

 drivers/staging/erofs/Kconfig | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

drivers/staging/erofs/Kconfig +0 -0

index 663b755bf2fb..b37d994aa687 100644

Sorry, I already took the first version in my tree. Don't worry about it for now you can fix this up after 4.19-rc1 is out when we enable the filesystem again.

thanks,

greg k-h

Quoted 89 lines · Chao Yu

From: Chao Yu <yuchao0 at huawei.com>

As Stephen Rothwell reported:

"After merging the staging tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:

drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: In function 'erofs_read_super':
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:343:17: error: 'MS_RDONLY' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'IS_RDONLY'?

  sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY | MS_NOATIME;
                 ^~~~~~~~~
                 IS_RDONLY
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:343:17: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:343:29: error: 'MS_NOATIME' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'S_NOATIME'?
  sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY | MS_NOATIME;
                             ^~~~~~~~~~
                             S_NOATIME
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: In function 'erofs_mount':
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:501:10: warning: passing argument 5 of 'mount_bdev' makes integer from pointer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
   &priv, erofs_fill_super);
          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In file included from include/linux/buffer_head.h:12:0,
from drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:14:
include/linux/fs.h:2151:23: note: expected 'size_t {aka long unsigned int}' but argument is of type 'int (*)(struct super_block *, void *, int)'
extern struct dentry *mount_bdev(struct file_system_type *fs_type,

                       ^~~~~~~~~~
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:500:9: error: too few arguments to function 'mount_bdev'
  return mount_bdev(fs_type, flags, dev_name,
         ^~~~~~~~~~

In file included from include/linux/buffer_head.h:12:0,
from drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:14:
include/linux/fs.h:2151:23: note: declared here
extern struct dentry *mount_bdev(struct file_system_type *fs_type,

                       ^~~~~~~~~~
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: At top level:
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:518:20: error: initialization from incompatible pointer type [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
  .mount          = erofs_mount,
                    ^~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:518:20: note: (near initialization for 'erofs_fs_type.mount')
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: In function 'erofs_remount':
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:630:12: error: 'MS_RDONLY' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'IS_RDONLY'?
  *flags |= MS_RDONLY;
            ^~~~~~~~~
            IS_RDONLY
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c: At top level:
drivers/staging/erofs/super.c:640:16: error: initialization from incompatible pointer type [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
  .remount_fs = erofs_remount,
                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~

Caused by various commits creating erofs in the staging tree interacting with various commits redoing the mount infrastructure in the vfs tree.

I have disabed CONFIG_EROFS_FS for now:"

The reason of compiling error is:

Since -next collects and merges developing patches including common vfs stuff from multi-trees, but those patches didn't cover erofs, such as:

('vfs: Suppress MS_* flag defs within the kernel unless explicitly enabled")
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=109b45090d7d3ce2797bb1ef7f70eead5bfe0ff3

("vfs: Require specification of size of mount data for internal mounts")
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=0a191e4505a4f255e6513b49426213da69bf0e80

Above vfs related patches has not been merged in staging tree, if we submit those erofs patches to staging mailing list and after including them in staging-{test,nexts} tree, it can easily cause compiling error.

We worked out some patches to adjust those vfs change, but now we just submit them to -next tree temporarily to avoid compiling error.

For potentail conflict in between erofs and vfs changes in incoming merge window, Stephen suggested that we can disable CONFIG_EROFS_FS temporarily to pass merge window, and after that we can do restore by reenabling CONFIG_EROFS_FS and applying those fixing patches. Also Greg confirmed this solution.

So, let's disable compiling erofs for a while.

Suggested-by Stephen Rothwell <sfr at canb.auug.org.au>

Signed-off-by Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25 at huawei.com>

Reviewed-by Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25 at huawei.com>

Signed-off-by Chao Yu <yuchao0 at huawei.com>

---
v3: remain "depends on BLOCK".

 drivers/staging/erofs/Kconfig | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

drivers/staging/erofs/Kconfig line 9

Quoted 12 lines

drivers/staging/erofs/Kconfig +1 -0

index 663b755bf2fb..b37d994aa687 100644
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 config EROFS_FS
 	tristate "EROFS filesystem support"
 	depends on BLOCK
+	depends on BROKEN
 	help
 	  EROFS(Enhanced Read-Only File System) is a lightweight
 	  read-only file system with modern designs (eg. page-sized

Sorry, I already took the first version in my tree. Don't worry about

it for now you can fix this up after 4.19-rc1 is out when we enable the filesystem again.

thanks,

greg k-h

.

Sorry, I already took the first version in my tree. Don't worry about

it for now you can fix this up after 4.19-rc1 is out when we enable the filesystem again.

thanks,

greg k-h

.

Hi Greg,

Quoted 1 line · Greg KH

Sorry, I already took the first version in my tree. Don't worry about

For staging-{test,next} maintaining thing, before merge window, if we want to remove or replace one merged patch in staging tree, what we can do is:
a. ask you for help to remove/replace it directly; or
b. submit a revert-patch first, and then send another fixed patch.

Quoted 5 lines · Chao Yu

Hi Greg,

Quoted 1 line · Greg KH

Sorry, I already took the first version in my tree. Don't worry about

Quoted 4 lines

For staging-{test,next} maintaining thing, before merge window, if we want to remove or replace one merged patch in staging tree, what we can do is:
a. ask you for help to remove/replace it directly; or
b. submit a revert-patch first, and then send another fixed patch.

Or better yet:
- submit a follow-on patch that fixes things up properly.

thanks

greg k-h

.

I found that erofs-related patch was merged a little bit quickly, so that we may miss Reviewed-by tag in that merged patch due to reviewer replied to the patch late.

Out of curiosity, is there any rule for picking up and merging patches in staging-{test,next} tree? like merging the patch if there is at least one guy replies an ACK or no one object for some time?

Quoted 6 lines · Chao Yu

I found that erofs-related patch was merged a little bit quickly, so that we may miss Reviewed-by tag in that merged patch due to reviewer replied to the patch late.

Out of curiosity, is there any rule for picking up and merging patches in staging-{test,next} tree? like merging the patch if there is at least one guy replies an ACK or no one object for some time?

That's what normally happens, I just was processing staging patches very quickly for a few days and got to them before you were able to review it. That is not the normal state of things :)

And remember, anyone can end up merging changes to your code, being a maintainers is not a "gatekeeper", it is a role where you are responsible for the code, but if other "responsible" people change it, that is also fine.

thanks,

greg k-h

Quoted 6 lines · Chao Yu

I found that erofs-related patch was merged a little bit quickly, so that we may miss Reviewed-by tag in that merged patch due to reviewer replied to the patch late.

Out of curiosity, is there any rule for picking up and merging patches in staging-{test,next} tree? like merging the patch if there is at least one guy replies an ACK or no one object for some time?

That's what normally happens, I just was processing staging patches very quickly for a few days and got to them before you were able to review it. That is not the normal state of things :)

And remember, anyone can end up merging changes to your code, being a maintainers is not a "gatekeeper", it is a role where you are responsible for the code, but if other "responsible" people change it, that is also fine.

thanks,

greg k-h