| Message ID | 1345602432-27673-14-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:27:08AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > +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.... --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 08/22/2012 01:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:27:08AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: >> +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). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:13:54PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 08/22/2012 01:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:27:08AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> +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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Sasha Levin (levinsasha928@gmail.com) wrote: > On 08/22/2012 01:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:27:08AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> +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-$(CONFIG_LOCKD) += lockd.o lockd-objs-y := clntlock.o clntproc.o clntxdr.o host.o svc.o svclock.o \ svcshare.o svcproc.o svcsubs.o mon.o xdr.o grace.o your patch adds a module_init to svcsubs.c. However, there is already one in svc.c, pulled into the same module. in your test build, is CONFIG_LOCKD defined as "m" or "y" ? You should always test both. One solution here is to create a "local" init function in svcsubs.c and expose it to svc.c, so the latter can call it from its module init function. Thanks, Mathieu
On 08/22/2012 03:22 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Sasha Levin (levinsasha928@gmail.com) wrote: >> On 08/22/2012 01:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:27:08AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: >>>> +static int __init nlm_init(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + hash_init(nlm_files); >>>> + return 0; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +module_init(nlm_init); >>> >>> That's giving me: >>> >>> fs/lockd/svcsubs.o: In function `nlm_init': >>> /home/bfields/linux-2.6/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:454: multiple definition of `init_module' >>> fs/lockd/svc.o:/home/bfields/linux-2.6/fs/lockd/svc.c:606: first defined here >>> make[2]: *** [fs/lockd/lockd.o] Error 1 >>> make[1]: *** [fs/lockd] Error 2 >>> make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... >> >> I tested this entire patch set both with linux-next and Linus' latest master, >> and it worked fine in both places. >> >> Is it possible that lockd has a -next tree which isn't pulled into linux-next? >> (there's nothing listed in MAINTAINERS that I could see). > > fs/lockd/Makefile: > > obj-$(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 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c b/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c index 0deb5f6..d223a1f 100644 --- a/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c +++ b/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ #include <linux/lockd/share.h> #include <linux/module.h> #include <linux/mount.h> +#include <linux/hashtable.h> #define NLMDBG_FACILITY NLMDBG_SVCSUBS @@ -28,8 +29,7 @@ * Global file hash table */ #define FILE_HASH_BITS 7 -#define FILE_NRHASH (1<<FILE_HASH_BITS) -static struct hlist_head nlm_files[FILE_NRHASH]; +static DEFINE_HASHTABLE(nlm_files, FILE_HASH_BITS); static DEFINE_MUTEX(nlm_file_mutex); #ifdef NFSD_DEBUG @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static inline unsigned int file_hash(struct nfs_fh *f) int i; for (i=0; i<NFS2_FHSIZE;i++) tmp += f->data[i]; - return tmp & (FILE_NRHASH - 1); + return tmp; } /* @@ -86,17 +86,17 @@ nlm_lookup_file(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file **result, { struct hlist_node *pos; struct nlm_file *file; - unsigned int hash; + unsigned int key; __be32 nfserr; nlm_debug_print_fh("nlm_lookup_file", f); - hash = file_hash(f); + key = file_hash(f); /* Lock file table */ mutex_lock(&nlm_file_mutex); - hlist_for_each_entry(file, pos, &nlm_files[hash], f_list) + hash_for_each_possible(nlm_files, file, pos, f_list, file_hash(f)) if (!nfs_compare_fh(&file->f_handle, f)) goto found; @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ nlm_lookup_file(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file **result, goto out_free; } - hlist_add_head(&file->f_list, &nlm_files[hash]); + hash_add(nlm_files, &file->f_list, key); found: dprintk("lockd: found file %p (count %d)\n", file, file->f_count); @@ -147,8 +147,8 @@ static inline void nlm_delete_file(struct nlm_file *file) { nlm_debug_print_file("closing file", file); - if (!hlist_unhashed(&file->f_list)) { - hlist_del(&file->f_list); + if (hash_hashed(&file->f_list)) { + hash_del(&file->f_list); nlmsvc_ops->fclose(file->f_file); kfree(file); } else { @@ -253,27 +253,25 @@ nlm_traverse_files(void *data, nlm_host_match_fn_t match, int i, ret = 0; mutex_lock(&nlm_file_mutex); - for (i = 0; i < FILE_NRHASH; i++) { - hlist_for_each_entry_safe(file, pos, next, &nlm_files[i], f_list) { - if (is_failover_file && !is_failover_file(data, file)) - continue; - file->f_count++; - mutex_unlock(&nlm_file_mutex); - - /* Traverse locks, blocks and shares of this file - * and update file->f_locks count */ - if (nlm_inspect_file(data, file, match)) - ret = 1; - - mutex_lock(&nlm_file_mutex); - file->f_count--; - /* No more references to this file. Let go of it. */ - if (list_empty(&file->f_blocks) && !file->f_locks - && !file->f_shares && !file->f_count) { - hlist_del(&file->f_list); - nlmsvc_ops->fclose(file->f_file); - kfree(file); - } + hash_for_each_safe(nlm_files, i, pos, next, file, f_list) { + if (is_failover_file && !is_failover_file(data, file)) + continue; + file->f_count++; + mutex_unlock(&nlm_file_mutex); + + /* Traverse locks, blocks and shares of this file + * and update file->f_locks count */ + if (nlm_inspect_file(data, file, match)) + ret = 1; + + mutex_lock(&nlm_file_mutex); + file->f_count--; + /* No more references to this file. Let go of it. */ + if (list_empty(&file->f_blocks) && !file->f_locks + && !file->f_shares && !file->f_count) { + hash_del(&file->f_list); + nlmsvc_ops->fclose(file->f_file); + kfree(file); } } mutex_unlock(&nlm_file_mutex); @@ -451,3 +449,11 @@ nlmsvc_unlock_all_by_ip(struct sockaddr *server_addr) return ret ? -EIO : 0; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nlmsvc_unlock_all_by_ip); + +static int __init nlm_init(void) +{ + hash_init(nlm_files); + return 0; +} + +module_init(nlm_init);
Switch lockd to use the new hashtable implementation. This reduces the amount of generic unrelated code in lockd. Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com> --- fs/lockd/svcsubs.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)