Re: [PATCH] RDMA/hns: Fix build error again

From: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Lijun Ou <oulijun@huawei.com>,
	"Wei Hu(Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@huawei.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>,
	YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>,
	Shaobo Xu <xushaobo2@huawei.com>,
	Shamir Rabinovitch <shamir.rabinovitch@oracle.com>,
	Xi Wang <wangxi11@huawei.com>, Tao Tian <tiantao6@huawei.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/hns: Fix build error again
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:08:51 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <113038cde3f1335ba9bf4d66f22f0a536b70ef1f.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191007211826.3361202-1-arnd@arndb.de>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1586 bytes --]

On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 23:18 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> This is not the first attempt to fix building random configurations,
> unfortunately the attempt in commit a07fc0bb483e ("RDMA/hns: Fix build
> error") caused a new problem when CONFIG_INFINIBAND_HNS_HIP06=m
> and CONFIG_INFINIBAND_HNS_HIP08=y:
> 
> drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_main.o:(.rodata+0xe60): undefined
> reference to `__this_module'
> 
> Revert commits a07fc0bb483e ("RDMA/hns: Fix build error") and
> a3e2d4c7e766 ("RDMA/hns: remove obsolete Kconfig comment") to get
> back to the previous state, then fix the issues described there
> differently, by adding more specific dependencies: INFINIBAND_HNS
> can now only be built-in if at least one of HNS or HNS3 are
> built-in, and the individual back-ends are only available if
> that code is reachable from the main driver.
> 
> Fixes: a07fc0bb483e ("RDMA/hns: Fix build error")
> Fixes: a3e2d4c7e766 ("RDMA/hns: remove obsolete Kconfig comment")
> Fixes: dd74282df573 ("RDMA/hns: Initialize the PCI device for hip08
> RoCE")
> Fixes: 08805fdbeb2d ("RDMA/hns: Split hw v1 driver from hns roce
> driver")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

This fix looks reasonable, but since I can't test this at all, and I'm
personally tired of trying and failing to fix this issue, I need to ask
if you've tried all the permutations for this just to confirm it works
in all valid cases?

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
    GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
    Fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B  1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]