From: "William A. (Andy) Adamson" Subject: Re: [pnfs] next-20090406: nfsd build fails Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:05:44 -0400 Message-ID: <89c397150904071305y2581a171qa45e4e78fe8ea3aa@mail.gmail.com> References: <49D9C308.6020500@panasas.com> <20090406171146.GA32436@fieldses.org> <49DBA132.5000703@panasas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Trond Myklebust , Stephen Rothwell , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, pNFS Mailing List , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , Alexander Beregalov To: Benny Halevy Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49DBA132.5000703@panasas.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Benny Halevy wrote: > On Apr. 06, 2009, 20:11 +0300, "J. Bruce Fields" wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:53:28AM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote: >>> On Apr. 06, 2009, 10:27 +0300, Alexander Beregalov wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c: In function 'set_max_drc': >>>> fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c:240: error: 'NFSD_DRC_SIZE_SHIFT' undeclared >>>> >>>> CONFIG_NFSD_V4 is not set >>> Hi Alexander, >>> >>> Thanks for reporting this! >>> >>> Andy, Bruce: please see attached 2 patches fixing compile/link errors >>> with DRC under !defined(CONFIG_NFSD_V4): >>> >>> [PATCH 1/2] SQUASHEM: nfsd41: define NFSD_DRC_SIZE_SHIFT in set_max_drc >>> [PATCH 2/2] SQUASHME: nfsd41: define nfsd4_set_statp as noop for !CONFIG_NFSD_V4 >> >> Thanks, applied. >> >> Committing on top (not squashing) since I'd rather not rewrite history >> on a branch I've already sent a pull request for. > > Cool. Thanks! > I wasn't aware that you already sent a pull request already... > I got it from mainline now and I'm rebasing and testing > the rest of our stuff on top of it. > >> >> (In fact, I'll try to stop rebasing those for-next branches at all this >> time around.) > > I'm with you on that. > > For 2.6.31, I'd like to send easy-to-swallow patch sets > that we can review and agree upon well ahead of the merge window > (i.e. start, e.g. with the backchannel stuff shortly after 2.6.30-rc1 > is cut) and once we're in agreement on it we can put it in linux-next > to be visible to others and get some soak time. This sounds good to me. I'm continuing with Bruce's review comments WRT the DRC. > This will also > be a good time to freeze it, so it won't be rebased, unless something > important enough requires that. How does that sound? > > I think that the same strategy should work for the client side too. > Trond what do you think? > > Benny > >> >> --b. > _______________________________________________ > pNFS mailing list > pNFS@linux-nfs.org > http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pnfs >