On 05/13/13 02:18, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:08 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 05/09/13 09:50, David Teigland wrote: >>> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>> [Just forwarding to David ...] >>>> >>>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> on x86_64: >>>>> >>>>> when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m: >>>>> >>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock': >>>>> file.c:(.text+0xa512c): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_get' >>>>> file.c:(.text+0xa5140): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_unlock' >>>>> file.c:(.text+0xa514a): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_lock' >>> >>> gfs2/file.c calls the dlm directly, so I suppose gfs2 itself needs >>> to depend on the dlm. It's been like this for a long time, so I >>> don't know why it only appeared now. >> >> Agreed to both statements. >> >>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_cancel': >>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb3f57): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' >>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_unmount': >>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb40ff): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' >>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_unlock.isra.4': >>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb420d): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' >>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_lock.isra.5': >>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb42d9): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' >>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_put_lock': >>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb45e7): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' >>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_mount': >>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4928): undefined reference to `dlm_new_lockspace' >>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4c75): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' >>>>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_lock': >>>>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb529f): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' >>> >>> lock_dlm.c is GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM which depends on DLM. >>> Is that not correct? >> >> The problem is that GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM is a bool. It depends on DLM, >> which is a tristate with a value of 'm', so the bool is true (as long >> as DLM != 'n'). >> >> One option is to make GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM depend on "DLM != n", but a >> better fix is to make GFS2_FS depend on DLM, like you said above. >> >> > > Does this look correct? As Dave says this has not changed for some time. > It seems that every time we try to get this right, there is always some > corner case that is missed :( Sorry, I misspoke above. It will have to depend on DLM=y since DLM=m is what is causing these build errors. > We can't make GFS2_FS depend on DLM as otherwise there would be no > reason to have GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM, at least if I've understood the > issue here correctly. So I've come up with the following... does it look > ok? > > > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig > index eb08c9e..edbad96 100644 > --- a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig > +++ b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ config GFS2_FS > config GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM > bool "GFS2 DLM locking" > depends on (GFS2_FS!=n) && NET && INET && (IPV6 || IPV6=n) && \ > - HOTPLUG && DLM && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS > + HOTPLUG && (DLM!=n) && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS HOTPLUG && DLM=y && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS > help > Multiple node locking module for GFS2 > > > -- ~Randy -- 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
