Hi, On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > [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. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Yes, that looks better to me. Can you send that as a patch? Then I can stick it in the tree for further testing. Thanks, Steve. -- 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
