[resending since mail server dropped it] On 05/13/13 12:34, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/13/13 12:31, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 05/13/13 09:30, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> 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. >> >> and that is too strict. It needs to allow for both dlm and gfs2 built as >> loadable modules. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> 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 >> >> HOTPLUG && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS && (DLM=y || DLM=GFS2_FS) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> I think. > > tested and works AFAICT. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> >>>> 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