On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:53:37AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
> On Apr 28, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi J.,
> >
> > After merging the nfsd tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c: In function 'gss_proxy_save_rsc':
> > net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c:1182:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'gss_mech_get_by_OID' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >
> > Caused byc ommit 030d794bf498 ("SUNRPC: Use gssproxy upcall for server
> > RPCGSS authentication"). gss_mech_get_by_OID() made static to
> > net/sunrpc/auth_gss/gss_mech_switch.c by commit 9568c5e9a61d ("SUNRPC:
> > Introduce rpcauth_get_pseudoflavor()") in the nfs tree (part of the nfs
> > tree that you did not merge).
> >
> > I don't know how to fix this, so I have used the nfsd tree from
> > next-20130426 for today.
>
> Bruce, it might make sense for me to submit the three server-side RPC GSS patches, and then you can rebase the gssproxy work on top of those. Let me know how you would like to proceed.
I'm happy to take those patches whenever you consider them ready. Would
that fix the problem?
Also: it looks like 030d794bf498 "SUNRPC: Introduce
rpcauth_get_pseudoflavor()" is in Trond's linux-next, but not his
nfs-for-next. I'm not sure what that means--is it safe to rebase on top
of *that*?
I was hoping I could consider the gss-proxy work committed at this point
and pile any fixes on top, but... whatever works for you guys, I guess.
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
