Re: linux-next: Tree for May 8 (dlm)

[Randy Dunlap]

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.

> 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

>  	help
>  	  Multiple node locking module for GFS2
>  
> 
> 


-- 
~Randy
--
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/