On 07/31/2012 09:33 AM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:30 -0400, Bryan Schumaker wrote: >> On 07/31/2012 09:05 AM, Bryan Schumaker wrote: >>> On 07/31/2012 08:55 AM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 08:47 -0400, Bryan Schumaker wrote: >>>>> 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()? >>>> >>>> Why is it evaluating differently in the include file vs. the .c file? >>>> Are we missing an include in nfs_fs.h? >>> >>> Good question. I don't see any reason that it would evaluate differently, but I'm compiling the .config attached to the initial email to try to figure it out. >>> >> >> Looks like the IS_ENABLED() switch got pushed to the next patch for V3 in include/linux/nfs_fs.h. Want me to resend the patches? I took another look at how IS_ENABLED() is defined, and it'll work if I do the switch in the patch before I turn everything into separate modules if you want me to resend everything. > > Please just make it incremental to the patch series that is already > merged in today's nfs-for-3.6. Easy enough, the patch that fixes it is the last one in the series that I sent in yesterday. > > Cheers > Trond > >>> - Bryan >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----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
