On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:44 -0400, Bryan Schumaker wrote: > 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. I don't understand. That is the patch series that Fengguang was testing afaik. His tests were on tree: git://git.linux-nfs.org/projects/trondmy/linux-nfs.git devel head: 5c13c9e1c15ee2ca9ab2b953224001af53d9be09 which includes your patch series from yesterday, no? > > > > 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 > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�ޗ�����n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
