Re: [Cluster-devel] linux-next: Tree for May 8 (dlm)
Hi, On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > [resending since mail server dropped it] > > On 05/13/13 12:34, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On 05/13/13 12:31, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 05/13/13 09:30, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >>> On 05/13/13 02:18, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:08 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On 05/09/13 09:50, David Teigland wrote: > >> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>> [Just forwarding to David ...] > >>> > >>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap > >>> wrote: > > on x86_64: > > when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m: > > fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock': > file.c:(.text+0xa512c): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_get' > file.c:(.text+0xa5140): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_unlock' > file.c:(.text+0xa514a): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_lock' > >> > >> gfs2/file.c calls the dlm directly, so I suppose gfs2 itself needs > >> to depend on the dlm. It's been like this for a long time, so I > >> don't know why it only appeared now. > > > > Agreed to both statements. > > > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_cancel': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb3f57): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_unmount': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb40ff): undefined reference to > `dlm_release_lockspace' > fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_unlock.isra.4': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb420d): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_lock.isra.5': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb42d9): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_put_lock': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb45e7): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_mount': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4928): undefined reference to > `dlm_new_lockspace' > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4c75): undefined reference to > `dlm_release_lockspace' > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_lock': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb529f): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' > >> > >> lock_dlm.c is GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM which depends on DLM. > >> Is that not correct? > > > > The problem is that GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM is a bool. It depends on DLM, > > which is a tristate with a value of 'm', so the bool is true (as long > > as DLM != 'n'). > > > > One option is to make GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM depend on "DLM != n", but a > > better fix is to make GFS2_FS depend on DLM, like you said above. > > > > > > Does this look correct? As Dave says this has not changed for some time. > It seems that every time we try to get this right, there is always some > corner case that is missed :( > >>> > >>> Sorry, I misspoke above. It will have to depend on DLM=y since DLM=m > >>> is what is causing these build errors. > >> > >> and that is too strict. It needs to allow for both dlm and gfs2 built as > >> loadable modules. > > > We can't make GFS2_FS depend on DLM as otherwise there would be no > reason to have GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM, at least if I've understood the > issue here correctly. So I've come up with the following... does it look > ok? > > > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig > index eb08c9e..edbad96 100644 > --- a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig > +++ b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ config GFS2_FS > config GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM > bool "GFS2 DLM locking" > depends on (GFS2_FS!=n) && NET && INET && (IPV6 || IPV6=n) && \ > -HOTPLUG && DLM && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS > +HOTPLUG && (DLM!=n) && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS > >>> > >>> HOTPLUG && DLM=y && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS > >> > >>HOTPLUG && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS && (DLM=y || DLM=GFS2_FS) > > > >> I think. > > > > tested and works AFAICT. > ^^ > Yes, that looks better to me. Can you send that as a patch? Then I can stick it in the tree for further testing. Thanks, Steve.
Re: [Cluster-devel] linux-next: Tree for May 8 (dlm)
[resending since mail server dropped it] On 05/13/13 12:34, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/13/13 12:31, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 05/13/13 09:30, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> On 05/13/13 02:18, Steven Whitehouse wrote: Hi, On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:08 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/09/13 09:50, David Teigland wrote: >> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> [Just forwarding to David ...] >>> >>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap >>> wrote: on x86_64: when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m: fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock': file.c:(.text+0xa512c): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_get' file.c:(.text+0xa5140): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_unlock' file.c:(.text+0xa514a): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_lock' >> >> gfs2/file.c calls the dlm directly, so I suppose gfs2 itself needs >> to depend on the dlm. It's been like this for a long time, so I >> don't know why it only appeared now. > > Agreed to both statements. > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_cancel': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb3f57): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_unmount': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb40ff): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_unlock.isra.4': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb420d): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_lock.isra.5': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb42d9): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_put_lock': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb45e7): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_mount': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4928): undefined reference to `dlm_new_lockspace' lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4c75): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_lock': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb529f): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' >> >> lock_dlm.c is GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM which depends on DLM. >> Is that not correct? > > The problem is that GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM is a bool. It depends on DLM, > which is a tristate with a value of 'm', so the bool is true (as long > as DLM != 'n'). > > One option is to make GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM depend on "DLM != n", but a > better fix is to make GFS2_FS depend on DLM, like you said above. > > Does this look correct? As Dave says this has not changed for some time. It seems that every time we try to get this right, there is always some corner case that is missed :( >>> >>> Sorry, I misspoke above. It will have to depend on DLM=y since DLM=m >>> is what is causing these build errors. >> >> and that is too strict. It needs to allow for both dlm and gfs2 built as >> loadable modules. We can't make GFS2_FS depend on DLM as otherwise there would be no reason to have GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM, at least if I've understood the issue here correctly. So I've come up with the following... does it look ok? diff --git a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig index eb08c9e..edbad96 100644 --- a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig +++ b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ config GFS2_FS config GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM bool "GFS2 DLM locking" depends on (GFS2_FS!=n) && NET && INET && (IPV6 || IPV6=n) && \ - HOTPLUG && DLM && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS + HOTPLUG && (DLM!=n) && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS >>> >>> HOTPLUG && DLM=y && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS >> >> HOTPLUG && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS && (DLM=y || DLM=GFS2_FS) >> I think. > > tested and works AFAICT. ^^ >>> help Multiple node locking module for GFS2 -- ~Randy
Re: [Cluster-devel] linux-next: Tree for May 8 (dlm)
On 05/13/13 02:18, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:08 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 05/09/13 09:50, David Teigland wrote: >>> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: [Just forwarding to David ...] On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: > > on x86_64: > > when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m: > > fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock': > file.c:(.text+0xa512c): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_get' > file.c:(.text+0xa5140): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_unlock' > file.c:(.text+0xa514a): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_lock' >>> >>> gfs2/file.c calls the dlm directly, so I suppose gfs2 itself needs >>> to depend on the dlm. It's been like this for a long time, so I >>> don't know why it only appeared now. >> >> Agreed to both statements. >> > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_cancel': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb3f57): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_unmount': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb40ff): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' > fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_unlock.isra.4': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb420d): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_lock.isra.5': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb42d9): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_put_lock': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb45e7): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_mount': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4928): undefined reference to `dlm_new_lockspace' > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4c75): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_lock': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb529f): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' >>> >>> lock_dlm.c is GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM which depends on DLM. >>> Is that not correct? >> >> The problem is that GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM is a bool. It depends on DLM, >> which is a tristate with a value of 'm', so the bool is true (as long >> as DLM != 'n'). >> >> One option is to make GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM depend on "DLM != n", but a >> better fix is to make GFS2_FS depend on DLM, like you said above. >> >> > > Does this look correct? As Dave says this has not changed for some time. > It seems that every time we try to get this right, there is always some > corner case that is missed :( Sorry, I misspoke above. It will have to depend on DLM=y since DLM=m is what is causing these build errors. > We can't make GFS2_FS depend on DLM as otherwise there would be no > reason to have GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM, at least if I've understood the > issue here correctly. So I've come up with the following... does it look > ok? > > > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig > index eb08c9e..edbad96 100644 > --- a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig > +++ b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ config GFS2_FS > config GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM > bool "GFS2 DLM locking" > depends on (GFS2_FS!=n) && NET && INET && (IPV6 || IPV6=n) && \ > - HOTPLUG && DLM && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS > + HOTPLUG && (DLM!=n) && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS HOTPLUG && DLM=y && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS > help > Multiple node locking module for GFS2 > > > -- ~Randy
Re: [Cluster-devel] linux-next: Tree for May 8 (dlm)
Hi, On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:08 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/09/13 09:50, David Teigland wrote: > > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> [Just forwarding to David ...] > >> > >> On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> on x86_64: > >>> > >>> when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m: > >>> > >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock': > >>> file.c:(.text+0xa512c): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_get' > >>> file.c:(.text+0xa5140): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_unlock' > >>> file.c:(.text+0xa514a): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_lock' > > > > gfs2/file.c calls the dlm directly, so I suppose gfs2 itself needs > > to depend on the dlm. It's been like this for a long time, so I > > don't know why it only appeared now. > > Agreed to both statements. > > >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_cancel': > >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb3f57): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_unmount': > >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb40ff): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' > >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_unlock.isra.4': > >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb420d): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_lock.isra.5': > >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb42d9): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' > >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_put_lock': > >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb45e7): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_mount': > >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4928): undefined reference to `dlm_new_lockspace' > >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4c75): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' > >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_lock': > >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb529f): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' > > > > lock_dlm.c is GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM which depends on DLM. > > Is that not correct? > > The problem is that GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM is a bool. It depends on DLM, > which is a tristate with a value of 'm', so the bool is true (as long > as DLM != 'n'). > > One option is to make GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM depend on "DLM != n", but a > better fix is to make GFS2_FS depend on DLM, like you said above. > > Does this look correct? As Dave says this has not changed for some time. It seems that every time we try to get this right, there is always some corner case that is missed :( We can't make GFS2_FS depend on DLM as otherwise there would be no reason to have GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM, at least if I've understood the issue here correctly. So I've come up with the following... does it look ok? diff --git a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig index eb08c9e..edbad96 100644 --- a/fs/gfs2/Kconfig +++ b/fs/gfs2/Kconfig @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ config GFS2_FS config GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM bool "GFS2 DLM locking" depends on (GFS2_FS!=n) && NET && INET && (IPV6 || IPV6=n) && \ - HOTPLUG && DLM && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS + HOTPLUG && (DLM!=n) && CONFIGFS_FS && SYSFS help Multiple node locking module for GFS2
Re: [Cluster-devel] linux-next: Tree for May 8 (dlm)
On 05/09/13 09:50, David Teigland wrote: > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> [Just forwarding to David ...] >> >> On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap >> wrote: >>> >>> on x86_64: >>> >>> when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m: >>> >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock': >>> file.c:(.text+0xa512c): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_get' >>> file.c:(.text+0xa5140): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_unlock' >>> file.c:(.text+0xa514a): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_lock' > > gfs2/file.c calls the dlm directly, so I suppose gfs2 itself needs > to depend on the dlm. It's been like this for a long time, so I > don't know why it only appeared now. Agreed to both statements. >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_cancel': >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb3f57): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_unmount': >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb40ff): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_unlock.isra.4': >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb420d): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_lock.isra.5': >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb42d9): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_put_lock': >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb45e7): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_mount': >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4928): undefined reference to `dlm_new_lockspace' >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4c75): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' >>> fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_lock': >>> lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb529f): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' > > lock_dlm.c is GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM which depends on DLM. > Is that not correct? The problem is that GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM is a bool. It depends on DLM, which is a tristate with a value of 'm', so the bool is true (as long as DLM != 'n'). One option is to make GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM depend on "DLM != n", but a better fix is to make GFS2_FS depend on DLM, like you said above. -- ~Randy
Re: [Cluster-devel] linux-next: Tree for May 8 (dlm)
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > [Just forwarding to David ...] > > On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > on x86_64: > > > > when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m: > > > > fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock': > > file.c:(.text+0xa512c): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_get' > > file.c:(.text+0xa5140): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_unlock' > > file.c:(.text+0xa514a): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_lock' gfs2/file.c calls the dlm directly, so I suppose gfs2 itself needs to depend on the dlm. It's been like this for a long time, so I don't know why it only appeared now. > > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_cancel': > > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb3f57): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_unmount': > > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb40ff): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' > > fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_unlock.isra.4': > > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb420d): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > > fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_lock.isra.5': > > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb42d9): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' > > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_put_lock': > > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb45e7): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_mount': > > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4928): undefined reference to `dlm_new_lockspace' > > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4c75): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' > > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_lock': > > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb529f): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' lock_dlm.c is GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM which depends on DLM. Is that not correct? Dave
Re: [Cluster-devel] linux-next: Tree for May 8 (dlm)
[Just forwarding to David ...] On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: > > on x86_64: > > when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m: > > fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock': > file.c:(.text+0xa512c): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_get' > file.c:(.text+0xa5140): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_unlock' > file.c:(.text+0xa514a): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_lock' > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_cancel': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb3f57): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_unmount': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb40ff): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' > fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_unlock.isra.4': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb420d): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_lock.isra.5': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb42d9): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_put_lock': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb45e7): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_mount': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4928): undefined reference to `dlm_new_lockspace' > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4c75): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' > fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_lock': > lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb529f): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au pgpd4bBLp0TF_.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cluster-devel] linux-next: Tree for May 8 (dlm)
On 05/07/13 21:01, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included > branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released. > > I am receiving a (un)reasonable number of conflicts from there being > multiple copies of some commits in various trees. Please clean this up > and resist the temptataion to rebase your trees on the way to your > upstream ... > > Changes since 20130506: > > > on x86_64: when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m: fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock': file.c:(.text+0xa512c): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_get' file.c:(.text+0xa5140): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_unlock' file.c:(.text+0xa514a): undefined reference to `dlm_posix_lock' fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_cancel': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb3f57): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_unmount': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb40ff): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_unlock.isra.4': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb420d): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' fs/built-in.o: In function `sync_lock.isra.5': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb42d9): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_put_lock': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb45e7): undefined reference to `dlm_unlock' fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_mount': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4928): undefined reference to `dlm_new_lockspace' lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb4c75): undefined reference to `dlm_release_lockspace' fs/built-in.o: In function `gdlm_lock': lock_dlm.c:(.text+0xb529f): undefined reference to `dlm_lock' -- ~Randy
