>From c80e7c83d56866a735236b45441f024b589f9e88 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Patrick Caulfield <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 14:31:12 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] [DLM] fix compile warning
This patch fixes a compile warning in lowcomms-tcp.c indicating that
kmem_cache_t is deprecated.
Signed-Off-By: Patrick Caulfield <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <[email protected]>
---
fs/dlm/lowcomms-tcp.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/dlm/lowcomms-tcp.c b/fs/dlm/lowcomms-tcp.c
index 8f2791f..9be3a44 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/lowcomms-tcp.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/lowcomms-tcp.c
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(lowcomms_
/* An array of pointers to connections, indexed by NODEID */
static struct connection **connections;
static DECLARE_MUTEX(connections_lock);
-static kmem_cache_t *con_cache;
+static struct kmem_cache *con_cache;
static int conn_array_size;
/* List of sockets that have reads pending */
--
1.4.1
>From 1003f06953472ecc34f12d9867670f475a8c1af6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Steven Whitehouse <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:16:25 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] [GFS2] Fix Kconfig
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Here is a patch to fix up the Kconfig so that we don't land up with
problems when people disable the NET subsystem. Thanks for all the hints and
suggestions that people have sent me regarding this.
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <[email protected]>
Cc: Aleksandr Koltsoff <[email protected]>
Cc: Toralf Förster <[email protected]>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
Cc: Chris Zubrzycki <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrick Caulfield <[email protected]>
---
fs/gfs2/Kconfig | 4 +++-
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig
index c0791cb..6a2ffa2 100644
--- a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig
+++ b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig
@@ -34,7 +34,9 @@ config GFS2_FS_LOCKING_NOLOCK
config GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM
tristate "GFS2 DLM locking module"
- depends on GFS2_FS
+ depends on GFS2_FS && NET && INET && (IPV6 || IPV6=n)
+ select IP_SCTP if DLM_SCTP
+ select CONFIGFS_FS
select DLM
help
Multiple node locking module for GFS2
--
1.4.1
Hi,
Please consider pulling the following two compile fixes for GFS2/DLM,
Steve.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following changes since commit d1998ef38a13c4e74c69df55ccd38b0440c429b2:
Ben Collins:
ib_verbs: Use explicit if-else statements to avoid errors with do-while macros
are found in the git repository at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/steve/gfs2-2.6-fixes.git
Patrick Caulfield:
[DLM] fix compile warning
Steven Whitehouse:
[GFS2] Fix Kconfig
fs/dlm/lowcomms-tcp.c | 2 +-
fs/gfs2/Kconfig | 4 +++-
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
On Dec 18 2006 09:57, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> config GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM
> tristate "GFS2 DLM locking module"
>- depends on GFS2_FS
>+ depends on GFS2_FS && NET && INET && (IPV6 || IPV6=n)
What is this supposed to do? IPV6 || IPV6=n is a tautology AFAICS.
-`J'
--
Hi,
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 11:50 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Dec 18 2006 09:57, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > config GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM
> > tristate "GFS2 DLM locking module"
> >- depends on GFS2_FS
> >+ depends on GFS2_FS && NET && INET && (IPV6 || IPV6=n)
>
> What is this supposed to do? IPV6 || IPV6=n is a tautology AFAICS.
>
>
> -`J'
It looks odd, I'll grant you, but see the thread entitled "Re: [PATCH]
Remove logically superfluous comparisons from Kconfig files." and the
answer that Russell King has just given on the same subject where he
says:
>config FOO
> tristate 'foo'
> depends on BAR || BAR=n
>
>is not superfluous. The allowed states for FOO with the above
>construct are (assuming modules are enabled):
>
> BAR FOO
> Y Y,M,N
> M M,N
> N Y,M,N
which hopefully explains it a bit better,
Steve.
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Dec 18 2006 09:57, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > config GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM
> > tristate "GFS2 DLM locking module"
> >- depends on GFS2_FS
> >+ depends on GFS2_FS && NET && INET && (IPV6 || IPV6=n)
>
> What is this supposed to do? IPV6 || IPV6=n is a tautology AFAICS.
no, we just went through that and russell king is correct -- see the
brief series of posts from earlier this morning during which i made a
fool of myself. :-P
although, it *is* curious that there appear to be only four places in
the entire source tree that incorporate that type of logical check.
i'm still trying to wrap my head around the rationale for that
particular combination, since it does seem to be rather infrequent and
(at least for me) a little non-intuitive.
rday