On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:13:54PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 08/22/2012 01:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:27:08AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> +static int __init nlm_init(void) > >> +{ > >> + hash_init(nlm_files); > >> + return 0; > >> +} > >> + > >> +module_init(nlm_init); > > > > That's giving me: > > > > fs/lockd/svcsubs.o: In function `nlm_init': > > /home/bfields/linux-2.6/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:454: multiple definition of `init_module' > > fs/lockd/svc.o:/home/bfields/linux-2.6/fs/lockd/svc.c:606: first defined here > > make[2]: *** [fs/lockd/lockd.o] Error 1 > > make[1]: *** [fs/lockd] Error 2 > > make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... > > I tested this entire patch set both with linux-next and Linus' latest master, > and it worked fine in both places. > > Is it possible that lockd has a -next tree which isn't pulled into linux-next? > (there's nothing listed in MAINTAINERS that I could see). No, there's the same problem with Linus's latest. I'm applying just patches 1 and 13--but doesn't look like your earlier patches touch lockd. Are you actually building lockd? (CONFIG_LOCKD). --b. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel