On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:13:54PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:

On 08/22/2012 01:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:27:08AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:

quoted

+static int __init nlm_init(void)
+{
+	hash_init(nlm_files);
+	return 0;
+}
+
+module_init(nlm_init);

That's giving me:

fs/lockd/svcsubs.o: In function `nlm_init':
/home/bfields/linux-2.6/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:454: multiple definition of `init_module'
fs/lockd/svc.o:/home/bfields/linux-2.6/fs/lockd/svc.c:606: first defined here
make[2]: *** [fs/lockd/lockd.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [fs/lockd] Error 2
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....

I tested this entire patch set both with linux-next and Linus' latest master,
and it worked fine in both places.

Is it possible that lockd has a -next tree which isn't pulled into linux-next?
(there's nothing listed in MAINTAINERS that I could see).

No, there's the same problem with Linus's latest.

I'm applying just patches 1 and 13--but doesn't look like your earlier
patches touch lockd.

Are you actually building lockd?  (CONFIG_LOCKD).

--b.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>