On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 23:45 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 04:44:12PM -0600, Tom Tucker wrote:
> > This patchset implements the RDMA Transport Driver for the
[...snip...]
I resent the two offending patches with fixes as required.
> I still need the following to get it to compile. Also, I'm getting
> these warnings:
>
> net/sunrpc/svc_rdma_transport.c: In function ‘dto_tasklet_func’:
> net/sunrpc/svc_rdma_transport.c:232: warning: passing argument 2 of
> ‘test_and_clear_bit’ from incompatible pointer type
> net/sunrpc/svc_rdma_transport.c:241: warning: passing argument 2 of
> ‘constant_test_bit’ from incompatible pointer type
> net/sunrpc/svc_rdma_transport.c:241: warning: passing argument 2 of
> ‘variable_test_bit’ from incompatible pointer type
> net/sunrpc/svc_rdma_transport.c:245: warning: passing argument 2 of
> ‘test_and_clear_bit’ from incompatible pointer type
> net/sunrpc/svc_rdma_transport.c: In function ‘rq_comp_handler’:
> net/sunrpc/svc_rdma_transport.c:271: warning: passing argument 2 of ‘set_bit’
> from incompatible pointer type
> net/sunrpc/svc_rdma_transport.c: In function ‘sq_comp_handler’:
> net/sunrpc/svc_rdma_transport.c:382: warning: passing argument 2 of ‘set_bit’
> from incompatible pointer type
> net/sunrpc/svc_rdma_transport.c: In function ‘rdma_cma_handler’:
> net/sunrpc/svc_rdma_transport.c:617: warning: passing argument 2 of
> ‘clear_bit’ from incompatible pointer type
> net/sunrpc/svc_rdma_transport.c: In function ‘svc_rdma_accept’:
> net/sunrpc/svc_rdma_transport.c:848: warning: passing argument 2 of ‘set_bit’
> from incompatible pointer type
>
I'm mystified as to why I didn't get these warnings. I built on a 64 bit
machine. It seems like that would give the warning since unsigned long
isn't even the same size as int.
> --b.
>
>
> commit d128e461892e6aa5332e1b87d0f94eba4728ee90
> Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue Nov 20 01:10:43 2007 -0800
>
> git-nfsd build fix
>
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> net/sunrpc/svcsock.c: In function 'svc_reclassify_socket':
> net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:100: error: 'struct sock' has no member named
> 'sk_xprt'
>
> Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> index 03207c9..2d0405a 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> @@ -97,7 +97,6 @@ static struct lock_class_key svc_slock_key[2];
> static inline void svc_reclassify_socket(struct socket *sock)
> {
> struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> - BUG_ON(sk->sk_xprt.xpt_lock.owner != NULL);
Somehow when I merged up to 2.6.24, this got merged incorrectly. The new
version still has the bug_on, but with the original argument.
> switch (sk->sk_family) {
> case AF_INET:
> sock_lock_init_class_and_name(sk, "slock-AF_INET-NFSD",
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
