On Apr 29, 2013, at 11:45 AM, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
Someone would need to modify the gssproxy patches to use the new interfaces.
> 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*?
That doesn't seem right to me.
> 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.
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
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
