Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the nfsd tree | From | Chuck Lever <> | Date | Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:37:34 -0400 |
| |
On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 12:05 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >> On Apr 29, 2013, at 11:45 AM, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:53:37AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>>> >>>> On Apr 28, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi J., >>>>> >>>>> After merging the nfsd tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc >>>>> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this: >>>>> >>>>> net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c: In function 'gss_proxy_save_rsc': >>>>> net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c:1182:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'gss_mech_get_by_OID' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >>>>> >>>>> Caused byc ommit 030d794bf498 ("SUNRPC: Use gssproxy upcall for server >>>>> RPCGSS authentication"). gss_mech_get_by_OID() made static to >>>>> net/sunrpc/auth_gss/gss_mech_switch.c by commit 9568c5e9a61d ("SUNRPC: >>>>> Introduce rpcauth_get_pseudoflavor()") in the nfs tree (part of the nfs >>>>> tree that you did not merge). >>>>> >>>>> I don't know how to fix this, so I have used the nfsd tree from >>>>> next-20130426 for today. >>>> >>>> Bruce, it might make sense for me to submit the three server-side RPC GSS patches, and then you can rebase the gssproxy work on top of those. Let me know how you would like to proceed. >>> >>> I'm happy to take those patches whenever you consider them ready. Would >>> that fix the problem? >> >> Someone would need to modify the gssproxy patches to use the new interfaces. >> >>> Also: it looks like 030d794bf498 "SUNRPC: Introduce >>> rpcauth_get_pseudoflavor()" is in Trond's linux-next, but not his >>> nfs-for-next. I'm not sure what that means--is it safe to rebase on top >>> of *that*? >> >> That doesn't seem right to me. > > GSS-Proxy patches are 1 year old and we've been delayed once already to > accomodate the containers work, maybe it's time for your patches to be > rebased on gssproxy ones ? :-)
Don't sweat it. IMO this is a simple merge problem, unlike the containers work.
-- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
| |