[GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Sage Weil]

Hi Linus,

Please pull the following Ceph updates from

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git for-linus

This changeset has a few main parts:

 * Ilya has finished a huge refactoring effort to sync up the client-side 
logic in libceph with the user-space client code, which has evolved 
significantly over the last couple years, with lots of additional 
behaviors (e.g., how requests are handled when cluster is full and 
transitions from full to non-full).  This structure of the code is more 
closely aligned with userspace now such that it will be much easier to 
maintain going forward when behavior changes take place.  There are some 
locking improvements bundled in as well.

 * Zheng adds multi-filesystem support (multiple namespaces within the 
same Ceph cluster)

 * Zheng has changed the readdir offsets and directory enumeration so that 
dentry offsets are hash-based and therefore stable across directory 
fragmentation events on the MDS.

 * Zheng has a smorgasbord of bug fixes across fs/ceph.

Thanks!
sage



----------------------------------------------------------------
Ilya Dryomov (40):
      rbd: get/put img_request in rbd_img_request_submit()
      libceph: make ceph_osdc_put_request() accept NULL
      libceph: grab snapc in ceph_osdc_alloc_request()
      libceph: move message allocation out of ceph_osdc_alloc_request()
      libceph: change how osd_op_reply message size is calculated
      libceph: variable-sized ceph_object_id
      rbd: use header_oid instead of header_name
      libceph: nuke unused fields and functions
      libceph: open-code remove_{all,old}_osds()
      libceph: DEFINE_RB_FUNCS macro
      libceph: fix ceph_eversion encoding
      libceph: rename ceph_oloc_oid_to_pg()
      libceph: ceph_osds, ceph_pg_to_up_acting_osds()
      libceph: rename ceph_calc_pg_primary()
      libceph: make pgid_cmp() global
      libceph: pi->min_size, pi->last_force_request_resend
      libceph: introduce ceph_osd_request_target, calc_target()
      libceph: switch to calc_target(), part 1
      libceph: switch to calc_target(), part 2
      libceph: drop msg argument from ceph_osdc_callback_t
      libceph: redo callbacks and factor out MOSDOpReply decoding
      libceph: move schedule_delayed_work() in ceph_osdc_init()
      libceph: schedule tick from ceph_osdc_init()
      libceph: allocate dummy osdmap in ceph_osdc_init()
      libceph: handle_one_map()
      libceph: osd_init() and osd_cleanup()
      libceph: allocate ceph_osd with GFP_NOFAIL
      libceph: protect osdc->osd_lru list with a spinlock
      libceph: a major OSD client update
      libceph: request_init() and request_release_checks()
      libceph: wait_request_timeout()
      rbd: rbd_dev_header_unwatch_sync() variant
      libceph, rbd: ceph_osd_linger_request, watch/notify v2
      libceph: support for sending notifies
      libceph: support for checking on status of watch
      libceph: async MON client generic requests
      libceph: pool deletion detection
      libceph: take osdc->lock in osdmap_show() and dump flags in hex
      libceph: replace ceph_monc_request_next_osdmap()
      libceph: support for subscribing to "mdsmap.<id>" maps

Yan, Zheng (30):
      ceph: multiple filesystem support
      ceph: CEPH_FEATURE_MDSENC support
      ceph: renew caps for read/write if mds session got killed.
      ceph: don't call truncate_pagecache in ceph_writepages_start
      ceph: don't show symlink target in debugfs/mdsc
      ceph: report mount root in session metadata
      ceph: use CEPH_MDS_OP_RMXATTR request to remove xattr
      ceph: search cache postion for dcache readdir
      ceph: remove unnecessary checks in __dcache_readdir
      ceph: simplify 'offset in frag'
      ceph: define struct for dir entry in readdir reply
      ceph: define 'end/complete' in readdir reply as bit flags
      ceph: record 'offset' for each entry of readdir result
      ceph: don't forbid marking directory complete after forward seek
      ceph: using hash value to compose dentry offset
      ceph: fix inode reference leak
      ceph: don't assume frag tree splits in mds reply are sorted
      ceph: fix dir_auth check in ceph_fill_dirfrag()
      ceph: keep leaf frag when updating fragtree
      ceph: improve fragtree change detection
      ceph: tolerate bad i_size for symlink inode
      ceph: block non-fatal signals for fault/page_mkwrite
      ceph: make fault/page_mkwrite return VM_FAULT_OOM for -ENOMEM
      ceph: handle -EAGAIN returned by ceph_update_writeable_page()
      libceph: make ceph_osdc_wait_request() uninterruptible
      ceph: make ceph_update_writeable_page() uninterruptible
      ceph: handle interrupted ceph_writepage()
      ceph: SetPageError() for writeback pages if writepages fails
      ceph: don't use truncate_pagecache() to invalidate read cache
      ceph: fix wake_up_session_cb()

Zhang Zhuoyu (1):
      ceph: make logical calculation functions return bool

 drivers/block/rbd.c             |  305 +--
 fs/ceph/addr.c                  |  214 +-
 fs/ceph/cache.c                 |    2 +-
 fs/ceph/caps.c                  |   51 +-
 fs/ceph/debugfs.c               |    2 +-
 fs/ceph/dir.c                   |  376 ++--
 fs/ceph/file.c                  |   89 +-
 fs/ceph/inode.c                 |  159 +-
 fs/ceph/ioctl.c                 |   14 +-
 fs/ceph/mds_client.c            |  140 +-
 fs/ceph/mds_client.h            |   17 +-
 fs/ceph/mdsmap.c                |   43 +-
 fs/ceph/super.c                 |   47 +-
 fs/ceph/super.h                 |   12 +-
 fs/ceph/xattr.c                 |   25 +-
 include/linux/ceph/ceph_frag.h  |    4 +-
 include/linux/ceph/ceph_fs.h    |   20 +-
 include/linux/ceph/decode.h     |    2 +-
 include/linux/ceph/libceph.h    |   57 +
 include/linux/ceph/mon_client.h |   23 +-
 include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h |  231 ++-
 include/linux/ceph/osdmap.h     |  158 +-
 include/linux/ceph/rados.h      |   34 +-
 net/ceph/ceph_common.c          |    2 +-
 net/ceph/ceph_strings.c         |   16 +
 net/ceph/debugfs.c              |  147 +-
 net/ceph/mon_client.c           |  393 ++--
 net/ceph/osd_client.c           | 4074 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 net/ceph/osdmap.c               |  651 +++++--
 29 files changed, 4779 insertions(+), 2529 deletions(-)

Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Please pull the following Ceph updates from

Why was that branch rebased yesterday?

What has been in next, if anything?

And if something has been in next, why was _that_ not sent to me?

Pulled and then immediately unpulled again. I'm fed up with people
doing stupid things.

                  Linus

Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Sage Weil]

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Please pull the following Ceph updates from
> 
> Why was that branch rebased yesterday?
> 
> What has been in next, if anything?
> 
> And if something has been in next, why was _that_ not sent to me?

The branch was assembled in its current form yesterday and is included in 
today's -next:

	https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=e536030934aebf049fe6aaebc58dd37aeee21840

The same commit went through our internal testing last night, and we've 
been testing the code for the better part of a week internally.

If you want it to bake longer in -next first, let us know.  We're not 
causing merge conflicts, and there isn't -next-based ceph testing that I'm 
aware of going on outside of our own QA environment, so I'm not sure how 
valuable it is, but I'm happy to delay before sending a pull request if 
that's what you want to see.

Thanks-
sage

Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> The branch was assembled in its current form yesterday and is included in
> today's -next:

So that's what I *don't* want, and it's not the point of "next".

The next branch is about the *next* merge window. If it was about the
current one, it would be called "linux-current".

It's not just about merge conflicts and integration - it's also about
showing that your code is ready. Having the branch being created the
day before would be much more palatable if we were talking about the
first few days of the merge window. As it is, we're in the latter part
of the second week of the merge window, and I get a very strong
feeling that it wasn't ready for the merge window, and that it was set
up in a hurry because it was getting to the last two working days.

And again, it's called the *merge* window, not the *development*
window. It's not that the two weeks is where the work is supposed to
be done, it's when things get merged. Right now I'm in the mode where
I was planning to look at some of the older pulls that I didn't do
earlier because I felt I wanted to take a second look (in particular,
I have two DAX pull requests that I am getting back to). And I'm
starting to already see pull requests for *fixes* for things I pulled
earlier in the merge window. That makes me go "good, people are
already using it and finding problems, we're starting to move from
just integration to fixing things up".

Having entirely new pull requests show up that haven't even been on my
radar because they weren't in linux-next is annoying.

And yes, I've started to become stricter about these issues, because
it turns out that the whole linux-next process has worked fairly well.
It allows developers to see what the potential problem spots can be,
but it also allows me to see what I can expect during the merge
window. And the "it's been in next for a while" really does give me
the warm and fuzzies. Admittedly very few people actually *run* and
actually test next kernels, but there's a couple who do, and even
without that it does tend to get not just build coverage for odd
configurations, but there are now several boot farms too, so it does
add value.

If your patch series had been "90% of it has been in -next since
before the merge window even opened, and 10% are clearly new things
that came in later", that would be one thing. That's perfectly normal
- last-minute fixes etc, possibly for stuff that was _found_ because
it was in linux-next.

But it was *all* from the last day, and I don't see anything at all in
my next tree (which I tend fetch at the end of the first week, exactly
to get a feel for "ok, so who/what am I still looking to get").

And yes, Ceph is pretty standalone and the boot farms likely don't
trigger any ceph testing, and the build coverage is probably pretty
configuration-independent (with architecture header file differences
likely being the biggest issue, and unlikely to happen to bite *only*
ceph), so you can always argue that linux-next isn't really all that
big of a deal for Ceph at least wrt coverage. But that can be argued
individually for almost _any_ subsystem. None of them are all that
likely to have problems individually. It's just that once you have
lots of different subsystems, not only do they interact, but enough of
those "very unlikely to have problems" on their own tends to become
"it's likely that _one_ of them ended up causing a problem anyway".

                  Linus

Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Al Viro]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:54:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Having entirely new pull requests show up that haven't even been on my
> radar because they weren't in linux-next is annoying.

How about the things like followups to earlier merges?  I've got in
#for-linus
    update D/f/directory-locking
    add down_write_killable_nested()
    restore killability of old mutex_lock_killable(&inode->i_mutex) users

The first one probably should've been in the work.lookups merge, but
the last two clearly depend upon down_write_killable() having been already
merged...

Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Pulled and then immediately unpulled again.

.. and having thought it over, I ended up re-pulling again, so now
it's going through my build test.

Consider this discussion a strong encouragement to *not* do this in
the future - sending me pull requests at the end of the merge window
without them having been in linux-next is a no-no, unless those pull
requests are small and trivial (or have fixes that I'd pull even
outside the merge window, of course).

             Linus

Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> How about the things like followups to earlier merges?

Small and obvious follow-ups are fine. What I really hated about this
ceph pull request was that it was multiple thousand lines of changes,
with no previous work or warning, and effectively no time in
linux-next.

Your for-linus branch is three small commits that actually restore old
functionality (well, one of them is documentetion) that got removed by
the big stuff you sent early (*).

So not at all the same kind of thing, and not problematic at all.

              Linus

(*) thanks, btw - you used to be one of the late people, now lately
you've been one of the early ones.

Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Sage Weil]

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Pulled and then immediately unpulled again.
> 
> .. and having thought it over, I ended up re-pulling again, so now
> it's going through my build test.
> 
> Consider this discussion a strong encouragement to *not* do this in
> the future - sending me pull requests at the end of the merge window
> without them having been in linux-next is a no-no, unless those pull
> requests are small and trivial (or have fixes that I'd pull even
> outside the merge window, of course).

Thank you!  We'll be sure we include things in -next well beforehand next 
time around, especially if it's a big diff like this one.

One point of clarification, though: in the past I've squashed down fixes 
discovered during testing if the branch hasn't hit a stable tree yet 
(e.g., your tree).  AIUI this is(was?) standard procedure for things in 
-next.  Do you want us to avoid squashing if we are creeping up on pull 
request time, or are you primarily interested in, say, seeing that what 
has been in -next for a while is substantially the same as what you pull, 
and has perhaps been there unmodified for at least a few days?  Or would 
you rather see fixup patches if we identify issues in the last few days of 
testing?

Thanks-
sage

Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> One point of clarification, though: in the past I've squashed down fixes
> discovered during testing if the branch hasn't hit a stable tree yet
> (e.g., your tree).  AIUI this is(was?) standard procedure for things in
> -next.

Yes, rebasing with good reason is acceptable for branches that don't
have anybody else depend on them.

Adn the "good reason" ends up being a judgement call. If the merge
window hasn't even started yet, the "good" reason may not even be very
great, and might might be "oh, I screwed up the commit message, so
let's make the history look good".

If it's already inside the merge window, you should aim for having
increasingly higher barriers to rebasing your tree, and strive to
generally try to avoid it.

If it's about something mostly cosmetic and the merge windoe has
opened or is just about to, leave it be.

On the other hand, if it's really nasty problem and seriously will
hurt people who try to bisect - even if you have fixed the problem
then later in the history - you might choose to do it to not be in the
situation that people who use "git bisect" to find another bug will
then be left with data corruption or something like that because of a
major bug in the middle of the development history.

And in between those two extremes of "cosmetic" and "nasty data
corruption bug" there is obviously a graduation of issues. There can't
be any completely black-and-white rules.

But the corollary to that is that if you really had a major bug that
you feld had to be fixed not just at the tip, but going back, then you
then shouldn't immediately send the end result to me. Because you just
fixed something critical (by definition, if you chose to do it just
before you would have wanted to send to me), so now you need to retest
things.

So rebasing isn't some absolute wrong thing. Sometimes rebasing is
simply the right thing to do. For example, maybe I don't get the same
commits that were in -next, but I would have still seen that the code
was there.

              Linus

Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 2:18:03 PM CEST Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> 
> Please pull the following Ceph updates from
> 
>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git for-linus
> 
> This changeset has a few main parts:
> 
>  * Ilya has finished a huge refactoring effort to sync up the client-side 
> logic in libceph with the user-space client code, which has evolved 
> significantly over the last couple years, with lots of additional 
> behaviors (e.g., how requests are handled when cluster is full and 
> transitions from full to non-full).  This structure of the code is more 
> closely aligned with userspace now such that it will be much easier to 
> maintain going forward when behavior changes take place.  There are some 
> locking improvements bundled in as well.

I'm getting a warning in some ARM randconfig build:

WARNING: "ceph_monc_do_statfs" [fs/ceph/ceph.ko] has no CRC!                                             

I have bisected this down to this particular commit fcd00b68bbe:
 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Ilya Dryomov (40):
>       libceph: DEFINE_RB_FUNCS macro

but I have no idea how the change relates to the symptom though.

What I see is that this one exported symbol has a __crc of a different
type from all the others:

$ nm net/ceph/mon_client.o | grep __crc
48c2e16e A __crc_ceph_monc_get_version
2360d633 A __crc_ceph_monc_get_version_async
0c50a10a A __crc_ceph_monc_got_map
         w __crc_ceph_monc_do_statfs
b63e5cf5 A __crc_ceph_monc_init
c4602476 A __crc_ceph_monc_open_session
5e6fd15f A __crc_ceph_monc_renew_subs
53a9ed7f A __crc_ceph_monc_stop
33a329fa A __crc_ceph_monc_validate_auth
34010ef9 A __crc_ceph_monc_wait_osdmap
29c50846 A __crc_ceph_monc_want_map

I only see this in some rare randconfig builds and have not figured out
which options are required, but I have also been able to reproduce it on
an x86 config and have uploaded the .config file to 
http://pastebin.com/raw/Dsrtfbcs 

	Arnd

Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> What I see is that this one exported symbol has a __crc of a different
> type from all the others:
>
> $ nm net/ceph/mon_client.o | grep __crc
> 48c2e16e A __crc_ceph_monc_get_version
> 2360d633 A __crc_ceph_monc_get_version_async
> 0c50a10a A __crc_ceph_monc_got_map
>          w __crc_ceph_monc_do_statfs

A lower-case 'w' in a symbol list just means that it's a local weak
symbol (with a upper-case 'A' meaning it's an absolute global).

Afaik, that simply means that it never got resolved, and genksyms
never generated that absolute value for it.

As to _why_ that happens, that's more than I can guess. We've had
problems with genksyms before, and it tends to be hard to debug.

Is it 100% reliable for you? Because the most common problem has been
issues with subtle build races, where just causing a re-build will fix
it.

Your config doesn't work for me, when I do

   cp ~/genksyms-config.txt .config
   make ARCH=i386 oldconfig

I get something else than what you had. I tried with both current -git
and the commit you pinpointed, so I don't know how you generated that
config file..

        Linus

Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Friday, June 10, 2016 2:32:21 PM CEST Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > What I see is that this one exported symbol has a __crc of a different
> > type from all the others:
> >
> > $ nm net/ceph/mon_client.o | grep __crc
> > 48c2e16e A __crc_ceph_monc_get_version
> > 2360d633 A __crc_ceph_monc_get_version_async
> > 0c50a10a A __crc_ceph_monc_got_map
> >          w __crc_ceph_monc_do_statfs
> 
> A lower-case 'w' in a symbol list just means that it's a local weak
> symbol (with a upper-case 'A' meaning it's an absolute global).
> 
> Afaik, that simply means that it never got resolved, and genksyms
> never generated that absolute value for it.
> 
> As to _why_ that happens, that's more than I can guess. We've had
> problems with genksyms before, and it tends to be hard to debug.
> 
> Is it 100% reliable for you? Because the most common problem has been
> issues with subtle build races, where just causing a re-build will fix
> it.

In a few thousand randconfig builds, this is the only symbol I ever
see the problem with, and I always see it with the same configurations
after rebuilding dozens of times, including with different compiler
versions (I only tried arm-gcc-4.9, arm-gcc-6.1 and x86-gcc-5.3, but
that seems to cover a wide range).

> Your config doesn't work for me, when I do
> 
>    cp ~/genksyms-config.txt .config
>    make ARCH=i386 oldconfig
> 
> I get something else than what you had. I tried with both current -git
> and the commit you pinpointed, so I don't know how you generated that
> config file..

I had not tried building the entire kernel on x86, and indeed I don't
see the warning there either, but I do see this one weak symbol in my
configuration:

arm-soc/obj-x86$ nm vmlinux | grep __crc | grep -w 'w'
         w __crc_ceph_monc_do_statfs

Also, the .config I first uploaded was based on my randconfig tree
that has some other changes to avoid all existing warnings. I've
done a 'make oldconfig' on your current HEAD now and put that
on http://pastebin.com/raw/EJBaG0FV just to make sure we have an
identical configuration.

The respective ARM .config file does produce the warning on
mainline, and I've uploaded that to http://pastebin.com/3NRSFSdr
I generated the x86 configuration by starting with this one
and running 'make olddefconfig ARCH=x86' on it.

I have found 15 more random configurations with the same symptom
now, and about 50 configurations with CONFIG_CEPH_FS=m that
don't show it, so I can mine the configurations for more hints
next week to see what influences it.

	Arnd

Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Friday, June 10, 2016 2:32:21 PM CEST Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > What I see is that this one exported symbol has a __crc of a different
> > type from all the others:
> >
> > $ nm net/ceph/mon_client.o | grep __crc
> > 48c2e16e A __crc_ceph_monc_get_version
> > 2360d633 A __crc_ceph_monc_get_version_async
> > 0c50a10a A __crc_ceph_monc_got_map
> >          w __crc_ceph_monc_do_statfs
> 
> A lower-case 'w' in a symbol list just means that it's a local weak
> symbol (with a upper-case 'A' meaning it's an absolute global).
> 
> Afaik, that simply means that it never got resolved, and genksyms
> never generated that absolute value for it.
> 
> As to _why_ that happens, that's more than I can guess. We've had
> problems with genksyms before, and it tends to be hard to debug.

(Cc: Michal and Sam, who might understand this better)

I still don't know what goes wrong, but the patch below fixes it.
I have experimentally determined that the next EXPORT_SYMBOL() after
the DEFINE_RB_FUNCS line in net/ceph/mon_client.c ends up without
a checksum, and that adding a semicolon at the end of that line
makes it work fine.

However, there are other DEFINE_RB_FUNCS instances in
net/ceph/osd_client.c that don't suffer from this problem,
so I still have no clue why it helps, and we probably don't
want to apply the patch unless we know what the problem is.

	Arnd

diff --git a/net/ceph/mon_client.c b/net/ceph/mon_client.c
index 37c38a7fb5c5..1ac468920495 100644
--- a/net/ceph/mon_client.c
+++ b/net/ceph/mon_client.c
@@ -478,7 +478,7 @@ out:
 /*
  * generic requests (currently statfs, mon_get_version)
  */
-DEFINE_RB_FUNCS(generic_request, struct ceph_mon_generic_request, tid, node)
+DEFINE_RB_FUNCS(generic_request, struct ceph_mon_generic_request, tid, node);
 
 static void release_generic_request(struct kref *kref)
 {

Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Friday, June 10, 2016 2:32:21 PM CEST Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > What I see is that this one exported symbol has a __crc of a different
> > type from all the others:
> >
> > $ nm net/ceph/mon_client.o | grep __crc
> > 48c2e16e A __crc_ceph_monc_get_version
> > 2360d633 A __crc_ceph_monc_get_version_async
> > 0c50a10a A __crc_ceph_monc_got_map
> >          w __crc_ceph_monc_do_statfs
> 
> A lower-case 'w' in a symbol list just means that it's a local weak
> symbol (with a upper-case 'A' meaning it's an absolute global).
> 
> Afaik, that simply means that it never got resolved, and genksyms
> never generated that absolute value for it.
> 
> As to _why_ that happens, that's more than I can guess. We've had
> problems with genksyms before, and it tends to be hard to debug.
> 
> Is it 100% reliable for you? Because the most common problem has been
> issues with subtle build races, where just causing a re-build will fix
> it.
> 
> Your config doesn't work for me, when I do
> 
>    cp ~/genksyms-config.txt .config
>    make ARCH=i386 oldconfig
> 
> I get something else than what you had. I tried with both current -git
> and the commit you pinpointed, so I don't know how you generated that
> config file..

I've tracked it down to the use of the 'typeof(((type *)0)->keyfld)'
expression in  DEFINE_RB_LOOKUP() now, and sent a patch with subject
"ceph: fix symbol versioning for ceph_monc_do_statfs" that works
around it by rewriting that line in a way that genksyms understands.

	Arnd