On 07/30/2012 11:14 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > Bryan, > > Why did you switch to using IS_ENABLED in the first place, and why wasn't that put in a separate patch? IS_ENABLED() will check for CONFIG_NFS_V*_MODULE, last I checked the defined() macro doesn't. Putting this into a separate patch makes the change non-bisectable since gcc will be checking against CONFIG_NFS_V3 but CONFIG_NFS_V3_MODULE is set. Should I have changed the CONFIG_ variables instead of using IS_ENABLED()? > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Fengguang Wu [mailto:fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:43 PM >> To: Schumaker, Bryan >> Cc: kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Myklebust, Trond; linux- >> nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: [nfs:devel 46/51] fs/nfs/write.c:1592:5: error: redefinition of >> 'nfs_commit_inode' >> >> Hi Bryan, >> >> Kernel build failed on >> >> tree: git://git.linux-nfs.org/projects/trondmy/linux-nfs.git devel >> head: 5c13c9e1c15ee2ca9ab2b953224001af53d9be09 >> commit: 1c606fb74c758beafd98cbad9a9133eadeec2371 [46/51] NFS: Convert >> v3 into a module >> config: blackfin-BF533-EZKIT_defconfig (attached as .config) >> >> All related error/warning messages: >> >> fs/nfs/write.c:1592:5: error: redefinition of 'nfs_commit_inode' >> In file included from fs/nfs/write.c:19:0: >> include/linux/nfs_fs.h:547:1: note: previous definition of 'nfs_commit_inode' >> was here >> >> vim +1592 fs/nfs/write.c >> 1589 return status; >> 1590 } >> 1591 >>> 1592 int nfs_commit_inode(struct inode *inode, int how) >> 1593 { >> 1594 LIST_HEAD(head); >> 1595 struct nfs_commit_info cinfo; >> >> --- >> 0-DAY kernel build testing backend Open Source Technology Centre >> Fengguang Wu <wfg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
