On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:53:37AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
> On Apr 28, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi J.,
> >
> > After merging the nfsd tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c: In function 'gss_proxy_save_rsc':
> > net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c:1182:3: error: implicit declaration of
> > function 'gss_mech_get_by_OID' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >
> > Caused byc ommit 030d794bf498 ("SUNRPC: Use gssproxy upcall for server
> > RPCGSS authentication"). gss_mech_get_by_OID() made static to
> > net/sunrpc/auth_gss/gss_mech_switch.c by commit 9568c5e9a61d ("SUNRPC:
> > Introduce rpcauth_get_pseudoflavor()") in the nfs tree (part of the nfs
> > tree that you did not merge).
> >
> > I don't know how to fix this, so I have used the nfsd tree from
> > next-20130426 for today.
>
> Bruce, it might make sense for me to submit the three server-side RPC GSS
> patches, and then you can rebase the gssproxy work on top of those. Let me
> know how you would like to proceed.
I'm happy to take those patches whenever you consider them ready. Would
that fix the problem?
Also: it looks like 030d794bf498 "SUNRPC: Introduce
rpcauth_get_pseudoflavor()" is in Trond's linux-next, but not his
nfs-for-next. I'm not sure what that means--is it safe to rebase on top
of *that*?
I was hoping I could consider the gss-proxy work committed at this point
and pile any fixes on top, but... whatever works for you guys, I guess.
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
