[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 13/17] lockd: use new hashtable implementation



* Sasha Levin (levinsasha928 gmail com) wrote:
> On 08/22/2012 01:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:27:08AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> +static int __init nlm_init(void)
> >> +{
> >> +	hash_init(nlm_files);
> >> +	return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +module_init(nlm_init);
> > 
> > That's giving me:
> > 
> > fs/lockd/svcsubs.o: In function `nlm_init':
> > /home/bfields/linux-2.6/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:454: multiple definition of `init_module'
> > fs/lockd/svc.o:/home/bfields/linux-2.6/fs/lockd/svc.c:606: first defined here
> > make[2]: *** [fs/lockd/lockd.o] Error 1
> > make[1]: *** [fs/lockd] Error 2
> > make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> 
> I tested this entire patch set both with linux-next and Linus' latest master,
> and it worked fine in both places.
> 
> Is it possible that lockd has a -next tree which isn't pulled into linux-next?
> (there's nothing listed in MAINTAINERS that I could see).

fs/lockd/Makefile:

obj-$(CONFIG_LOCKD) += lockd.o

lockd-objs-y := clntlock.o clntproc.o clntxdr.o host.o svc.o svclock.o \
                svcshare.o svcproc.o svcsubs.o mon.o xdr.o grace.o

your patch adds a module_init to svcsubs.c.
However, there is already one in svc.c, pulled into the same module.

in your test build, is CONFIG_LOCKD defined as "m" or "y" ? You should
always test both.

One solution here is to create a "local" init function in svcsubs.c and
expose it to svc.c, so the latter can call it from its module init
function.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]