On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 12:37 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Simo Sorce <simo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 12:05 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > GSS-Proxy patches are 1 year old and we've been delayed once already to
> > accomodate the containers work, maybe it's time for your patches to be
> > rebased on gssproxy ones ? :-)
>
> Don't sweat it. IMO this is a simple merge problem, unlike the containers work.
Glad to hear that.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
--
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
