Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[James Simmons]

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> > lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> > exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> > was done when porting to the upstream client.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: James Simmons 
> > Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/14545
> > Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/15159
> > Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-6486
> > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Eremin 
> > Reviewed-by: Bob Glossman 
> > Reviewed-by: John L. Hammond 
> > Reviewed-by: Oleg Drokin 
> > Signed-off-by: James Simmons 
> > ---
> >  .../staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c|2 ++
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c 
> > b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c
> > index 1349bf6..8717685 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c
> > @@ -1861,6 +1861,7 @@ void lustre_swab_lmv_mds_md(union lmv_mds_md *lmm)
> > break;
> > }
> >  }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lustre_swab_lmv_mds_md);
> 
> I don't see anyone else using this symbol, in fact, it could now be
> marked static.  So why export it?

Too soon to export it. A patch is coming in which the llite layer will use 
it. I will drop it and make a note to make sure for the upcoming patch 
that I export lustre_swab_lmv_mds_md.

> >  void lustre_swab_lmv_user_md(struct lmv_user_md *lum)
> >  {
> > @@ -1914,6 +1915,7 @@ void lustre_swab_lov_mds_md(struct lov_mds_md *lmm)
> > __swab16s(>lmm_stripe_count);
> > __swab16s(>lmm_layout_gen);
> >  }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lustre_swab_lov_mds_md);
> 
> This is used by other files (it's listed twice in lustre_idl.h...), so
> it might need to be exported, but why am I not seeing a build error
> without this change?

The function lustre_swab_lov_mds_md is also used in lov_pack.c so it needs
to be exported. You shouldn't be able to load some of the lustre modules 
but it does on x86. I will send a new patch to fix this but a note about
this breakage should be kept so someone with an indepth understanding of 
the module system can track down what is going wrong.

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[James Simmons]

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> > lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> > exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> > was done when porting to the upstream client.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: James Simmons 
> > Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/14545
> > Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/15159
> > Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-6486
> > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Eremin 
> > Reviewed-by: Bob Glossman 
> > Reviewed-by: John L. Hammond 
> > Reviewed-by: Oleg Drokin 
> > Signed-off-by: James Simmons 
> > ---
> >  .../staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c|2 ++
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c 
> > b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c
> > index 1349bf6..8717685 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c
> > @@ -1861,6 +1861,7 @@ void lustre_swab_lmv_mds_md(union lmv_mds_md *lmm)
> > break;
> > }
> >  }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lustre_swab_lmv_mds_md);
> 
> I don't see anyone else using this symbol, in fact, it could now be
> marked static.  So why export it?

Too soon to export it. A patch is coming in which the llite layer will use 
it. I will drop it and make a note to make sure for the upcoming patch 
that I export lustre_swab_lmv_mds_md.

> >  void lustre_swab_lmv_user_md(struct lmv_user_md *lum)
> >  {
> > @@ -1914,6 +1915,7 @@ void lustre_swab_lov_mds_md(struct lov_mds_md *lmm)
> > __swab16s(>lmm_stripe_count);
> > __swab16s(>lmm_layout_gen);
> >  }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lustre_swab_lov_mds_md);
> 
> This is used by other files (it's listed twice in lustre_idl.h...), so
> it might need to be exported, but why am I not seeing a build error
> without this change?

The function lustre_swab_lov_mds_md is also used in lov_pack.c so it needs
to be exported. You shouldn't be able to load some of the lustre modules 
but it does on x86. I will send a new patch to fix this but a note about
this breakage should be kept so someone with an indepth understanding of 
the module system can track down what is going wrong.

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[James Simmons]

> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > > Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> > > lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> > > exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> > > was done when porting to the upstream client.
> > 
> > How did our build testing not catch this?  What needs these exports?  Is
> > it any in-kernel code?
> > 
> > confused,
> 
> It did catch it...  James, every patch has to be buildable (bisectable)
> so the original patch is never going to be merged.

We missed it original as well due to the fact it showed up on only 
specific platforms. I have no idea why that is. The majority of the
time it works. BTW is there a way to run kbuild bot on a patch set
before submission to avoid these corner cases.

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[James Simmons]

> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > > Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> > > lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> > > exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> > > was done when porting to the upstream client.
> > 
> > How did our build testing not catch this?  What needs these exports?  Is
> > it any in-kernel code?
> > 
> > confused,
> 
> It did catch it...  James, every patch has to be buildable (bisectable)
> so the original patch is never going to be merged.

We missed it original as well due to the fact it showed up on only 
specific platforms. I have no idea why that is. The majority of the
time it works. BTW is there a way to run kbuild bot on a patch set
before submission to avoid these corner cases.

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:16:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:52:19AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:47:02AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > > > > Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> > > > > lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> > > > > exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> > > > > was done when porting to the upstream client.
> > > > 
> > > > How did our build testing not catch this?  What needs these exports?  Is
> > > > it any in-kernel code?
> > > > 
> > > > confused,
> > > 
> > > It did catch it...
> > 
> > It did?  Works here for me, and I didn't see an error report anywhere...
> > 
> > > James, every patch has to be buildable (bisectable) so the original
> > > patch is never going to be merged.
> > 
> > What is the "original" patch here?
> > 
> 
> [PATCH 112/124] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: remove unnecessary EXPORT_SYMBOL
> 
> kbuild responded to the email that it broke compilation on s360 but I
> don't think the breakage is arch specific?

Crap, I thought that was some other kbuild failure, my fault for
ignoring that.

Ok, I'll take half of this patch, if it gets resent...

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:16:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:52:19AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:47:02AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > > > > Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> > > > > lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> > > > > exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> > > > > was done when porting to the upstream client.
> > > > 
> > > > How did our build testing not catch this?  What needs these exports?  Is
> > > > it any in-kernel code?
> > > > 
> > > > confused,
> > > 
> > > It did catch it...
> > 
> > It did?  Works here for me, and I didn't see an error report anywhere...
> > 
> > > James, every patch has to be buildable (bisectable) so the original
> > > patch is never going to be merged.
> > 
> > What is the "original" patch here?
> > 
> 
> [PATCH 112/124] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: remove unnecessary EXPORT_SYMBOL
> 
> kbuild responded to the email that it broke compilation on s360 but I
> don't think the breakage is arch specific?

Crap, I thought that was some other kbuild failure, my fault for
ignoring that.

Ok, I'll take half of this patch, if it gets resent...

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> was done when porting to the upstream client.
> 
> Signed-off-by: James Simmons 
> Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/14545
> Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/15159
> Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-6486
> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Eremin 
> Reviewed-by: Bob Glossman 
> Reviewed-by: John L. Hammond 
> Reviewed-by: Oleg Drokin 
> Signed-off-by: James Simmons 
> ---
>  .../staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c|2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c 
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c
> index 1349bf6..8717685 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c
> @@ -1861,6 +1861,7 @@ void lustre_swab_lmv_mds_md(union lmv_mds_md *lmm)
>   break;
>   }
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lustre_swab_lmv_mds_md);

I don't see anyone else using this symbol, in fact, it could now be
marked static.  So why export it?

>  void lustre_swab_lmv_user_md(struct lmv_user_md *lum)
>  {
> @@ -1914,6 +1915,7 @@ void lustre_swab_lov_mds_md(struct lov_mds_md *lmm)
>   __swab16s(>lmm_stripe_count);
>   __swab16s(>lmm_layout_gen);
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lustre_swab_lov_mds_md);

This is used by other files (it's listed twice in lustre_idl.h...), so
it might need to be exported, but why am I not seeing a build error
without this change?

confused,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> was done when porting to the upstream client.
> 
> Signed-off-by: James Simmons 
> Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/14545
> Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/15159
> Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-6486
> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Eremin 
> Reviewed-by: Bob Glossman 
> Reviewed-by: John L. Hammond 
> Reviewed-by: Oleg Drokin 
> Signed-off-by: James Simmons 
> ---
>  .../staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c|2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c 
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c
> index 1349bf6..8717685 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c
> @@ -1861,6 +1861,7 @@ void lustre_swab_lmv_mds_md(union lmv_mds_md *lmm)
>   break;
>   }
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lustre_swab_lmv_mds_md);

I don't see anyone else using this symbol, in fact, it could now be
marked static.  So why export it?

>  void lustre_swab_lmv_user_md(struct lmv_user_md *lum)
>  {
> @@ -1914,6 +1915,7 @@ void lustre_swab_lov_mds_md(struct lov_mds_md *lmm)
>   __swab16s(>lmm_stripe_count);
>   __swab16s(>lmm_layout_gen);
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lustre_swab_lov_mds_md);

This is used by other files (it's listed twice in lustre_idl.h...), so
it might need to be exported, but why am I not seeing a build error
without this change?

confused,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:52:19AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:47:02AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > > Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> > > lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> > > exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> > > was done when porting to the upstream client.
> > 
> > How did our build testing not catch this?  What needs these exports?  Is
> > it any in-kernel code?
> > 
> > confused,
> 
> It did catch it...

It did?  Works here for me, and I didn't see an error report anywhere...

> James, every patch has to be buildable (bisectable) so the original
> patch is never going to be merged.

What is the "original" patch here?

totally confused,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:52:19AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:47:02AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > > Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> > > lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> > > exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> > > was done when porting to the upstream client.
> > 
> > How did our build testing not catch this?  What needs these exports?  Is
> > it any in-kernel code?
> > 
> > confused,
> 
> It did catch it...

It did?  Works here for me, and I didn't see an error report anywhere...

> James, every patch has to be buildable (bisectable) so the original
> patch is never going to be merged.

What is the "original" patch here?

totally confused,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[Dan Carpenter]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:52:19AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:47:02AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > > > Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> > > > lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> > > > exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> > > > was done when porting to the upstream client.
> > > 
> > > How did our build testing not catch this?  What needs these exports?  Is
> > > it any in-kernel code?
> > > 
> > > confused,
> > 
> > It did catch it...
> 
> It did?  Works here for me, and I didn't see an error report anywhere...
> 
> > James, every patch has to be buildable (bisectable) so the original
> > patch is never going to be merged.
> 
> What is the "original" patch here?
> 

[PATCH 112/124] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: remove unnecessary EXPORT_SYMBOL

kbuild responded to the email that it broke compilation on s360 but I
don't think the breakage is arch specific?

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[Dan Carpenter]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:52:19AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:47:02AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > > > Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> > > > lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> > > > exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> > > > was done when porting to the upstream client.
> > > 
> > > How did our build testing not catch this?  What needs these exports?  Is
> > > it any in-kernel code?
> > > 
> > > confused,
> > 
> > It did catch it...
> 
> It did?  Works here for me, and I didn't see an error report anywhere...
> 
> > James, every patch has to be buildable (bisectable) so the original
> > patch is never going to be merged.
> 
> What is the "original" patch here?
> 

[PATCH 112/124] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: remove unnecessary EXPORT_SYMBOL

kbuild responded to the email that it broke compilation on s360 but I
don't think the breakage is arch specific?

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[Dan Carpenter]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:47:02AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> > lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> > exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> > was done when porting to the upstream client.
> 
> How did our build testing not catch this?  What needs these exports?  Is
> it any in-kernel code?
> 
> confused,

It did catch it...  James, every patch has to be buildable (bisectable)
so the original patch is never going to be merged.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[Dan Carpenter]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:47:02AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> > lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> > exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> > was done when porting to the upstream client.
> 
> How did our build testing not catch this?  What needs these exports?  Is
> it any in-kernel code?
> 
> confused,

It did catch it...  James, every patch has to be buildable (bisectable)
so the original patch is never going to be merged.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> was done when porting to the upstream client.

How did our build testing not catch this?  What needs these exports?  Is
it any in-kernel code?

confused,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: re-export lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:27:05PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> Being over zealous in removing unused EXPORT_SYMBOLs two functions
> lustre_swab_[lmv|lov]_mds_md exports were removed. They need to be
> exported so this patch restores those EXPORT_SYMBOLS. Same mistake
> was done when porting to the upstream client.

How did our build testing not catch this?  What needs these exports?  Is
it any in-kernel code?

confused,

greg k-h