Re: linux-next: Tree for January 12 (cifs vs. staging)

[Dave Kleikamp]

On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 12:58 -0600, Steve French wrote:
> There is not just the cifs md5 one (which has been around a long
> time), but an md5_init (static) in crypto and the new one in rt.  The
> addition of the new one (rt md5_init) causes the build problem.   It
> would be nice if we could use the same md5 routines though ... last
> time we checked the crypto one was not well suited for calculating
> signatures as a network fs would do though.

Is that due to the byte-swapping?  Can the cifs and rt* drivers use the
same code.  rt28[67]0/common/md5.c are identical files.  In fact those
"common" directories should probably be combined into a single truly
common directory.

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Some people took me at my word and so we have the 2.6.30 code starting to
> >> trickle in already.
> >
> >
> >
> > When CIFS is built-in (=y) and staging/rt28[67]0 =y, there are multiple
> > definitions of:
> >
> > build-r8250.out:(.text+0x1d8ad0): multiple definition of `MD5Init'
> > build-r8250.out:(.text+0x1dbb30): multiple definition of `MD5Update'
> > build-r8250.out:(.text+0x1db9b0): multiple definition of `MD5Final'
> >
> > all of which need to have more unique identifiers for their global
> > symbols (e.g., rt28_md5_init, cifs_md5_init, foo, blah, bar).
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~Randy
> >
> 
> 
> 
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/