Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] lockd: use new hashtable implementation

From: Sasha Levin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:13:54 +0200

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 [email-masked]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html