On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:22:53AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> After merging the btrfs-kdave tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> fs/ntfs/attrib.c: In function 'ntfs_attr_set':
> fs/ntfs/attrib.c:2549:35: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'inode_to_bdi' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(inode_to_bdi(inode),
> ^
> fs/ntfs/attrib.c:2549:35: warning: passing argument 1 of
> 'balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited' makes pointer from integer without a cast
> [-Wint-conversion]
> In file included from include/linux/memcontrol.h:30:0,
> from include/linux/swap.h:8,
> from fs/ntfs/attrib.c:26:
> include/linux/writeback.h:367:6: note: expected 'struct backing_dev_info *'
> but argument is of type 'int'
> void balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> ^
> fs/ntfs/attrib.c:2591:35: warning: passing argument 1 of
> 'balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited' makes pointer from integer without a cast
> [-Wint-conversion]
> balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(inode_to_bdi(inode),
> ^
> In file included from include/linux/memcontrol.h:30:0,
> from include/linux/swap.h:8,
> from fs/ntfs/attrib.c:26:
> include/linux/writeback.h:367:6: note: expected 'struct backing_dev_info *'
> but argument is of type 'int'
> void balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> ^
> fs/ntfs/attrib.c:2609:35: warning: passing argument 1 of
> 'balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited' makes pointer from integer without a cast
> [-Wint-conversion]
> balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(inode_to_bdi(inode),
> ^
> In file included from include/linux/memcontrol.h:30:0,
> from include/linux/swap.h:8,
> from fs/ntfs/attrib.c:26:
> include/linux/writeback.h:367:6: note: expected 'struct backing_dev_info *'
> but argument is of type 'int'
> void balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> ^
>
> Caused by commit
>
> a685fa61566d ("remove mapping from balance_dirty_pages*()")
>
> I assume some forgotten include(s).
No, I picked a wrong version of the patchset. But the patchset should
not have been in for-next as it's a change to writeback (a prerequisity
for a btrfs patchset). Now removed.
