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

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>]

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@infradead.org> 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.


-- 
~Randy