> On Mar 4, 2020, at 3:06 PM, Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 01:00:12PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> Hi-
>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2020, at 8:18 AM, YueHaibing <yuehaibing@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.o: In function `nfsd4_do_copy':
>>> nfs4proc.c:(.text+0x23b7): undefined reference to `nfs42_ssc_close'
>>> fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.o: In function `nfsd4_copy':
>>> nfs4proc.c:(.text+0x5d2a): undefined reference to `nfs_sb_deactive'
>>> fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.o: In function `nfsd4_do_async_copy':
>>> nfs4proc.c:(.text+0x61d5): undefined reference to `nfs42_ssc_open'
>>> nfs4proc.c:(.text+0x6389): undefined reference to `nfs_sb_deactive'
>>>
>>> Add dependency to NFSD_V4_2_INTER_SSC to fix this.
>>>
>>> Fixes: ce0887ac96d3 ("NFSD add nfs4 inter ssc to nfsd4_copy")
>>> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/nfsd/Kconfig | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/Kconfig b/fs/nfsd/Kconfig
>>> index f368f32..fc587a5 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/Kconfig
>>> @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ config NFSD_FLEXFILELAYOUT
>>>
>>> config NFSD_V4_2_INTER_SSC
>>> bool "NFSv4.2 inter server to server COPY"
>>> + depends on !(NFSD=y && NFS_FS=m)
>>
>> The new dependency is not especially clear to me; more explanation
>> in the patch description about the cause of the build failure
>> would definitely be helpful.
>>
>> NFSD_V4 can't be set unless NFSD is also set.
>>
>> NFS_V4_2 can't be set unless NFS_V4_1 is also set, and that cannot
>> be set unless NFS_FS is also set.
>>
>> So what's really going on here?
>
> I don't understand that "depends" either.
>
> The fundamental problem, though, is that nfsd is calling nfs code
> directly.
>
> Which I noticed in earlier review and then forgot to follow up on,
> sorry.
>
> So either we:
>
> - let nfsd depend on nfs, fix up Kconfig to reflect the fact, or
> - write some code so nfsd can load nfs and find those symbols at
> runtime if it needs to do a copy.
Another practical option would be to create a copy of these functions in
the server's SSC code. At least nfs_sb_deactive() is not large.
Not clear if nfs42_ssc_open/close are even used on the client. Maybe they
could be moved to the server?
> The latter's certainly doable, but it'd be simplest to do the former.
> Are there actually a lot of people who want nfsd but not nfs? Does that
> cause a real problem for anyone?
>
> --b.
--
Chuck Lever
