[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



On 08/22/2012 03:22 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * 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.

Ah yes, it was on =y and I didn't notice :/

I'll fix that.

> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 


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