On 08/22/2012 03:22 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

* Sasha Levin (levinsasha928-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org) wrote:

quoted

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).

fs/lockd/Makefile:

obj-$(CONFIG_LOCKD) += lockd.o

lockd-objs-y := clntlock.o clntproc.o clntxdr.o host.o svc.o svclock.o \
                svcshare.o svcproc.o svcsubs.o mon.o xdr.o grace.o

your patch adds a module_init to svcsubs.c.
However, there is already one in svc.c, pulled into the same module.

in your test build, is CONFIG_LOCKD defined as "m" or "y" ? You should
always test both.

One solution here is to create a "local" init function in svcsubs.c and
expose it to svc.c, so the latter can call it from its module init
function.

Ah yes, it was on =y and I didn't notice :/

I'll fix that.

Thanks,

Mathieu