On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 1:57 PM Dominique Martinet <asmad...@codewreck.org> wrote: > > Alexander Kapshuk wrote on Sun, Jun 21, 2020: > > Thanks for your feedback. > > Shall I simply resend the v2 patch with the commit message reworded as > > you suggested, or should I make it a v3 patch instead? > > Yes please resend the same commit reworded. v2 or v3 doesn't matter > much, the [PATCH whatever] part of the mail isn't included in the commit > message; I don't receive so much patches to be fussy about that :) > Understood. Thanks. :)
> > One other thing I wanted to clarify is I got a message from kernel > > test robot <l...@intel.com>, > > https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-...@lists.01.org/thread/TMTLPYU6A522JH2VCN3PNZVAP6EE5MDF/, > > saying that on parisc my patch resulted in __lock_task_sighand being > > undefined during modpost'ing. > > I've noticed similar messages about other people's patches on the > > linux-kernel mailing list with the responses stating that the issue > > was at the compilation site rather than with the patch itself. > > As far as I understand, that is the case with my patch also. So no > > further action on that is required of me, is it? > > Thanks, I hadn't noticed this mail -- unfortunately I don't have > anything setup to test pa risc, but __lock_task_sighand is defined in > kernel/signal.c which is unconditionally compiled so shouldn't have > anything to do with arch-specific failures, so I will run into the same > problem when I test this. > > From just looking at the code, it looks like a real problem to me - > __lock_task_sighand is never passed to EXPORT_SYMBOL so when building 9p > as a module we cannot use the function. Only exported symbols can be > called from code that can be built as modules. > > That looks like an oversight to me more than something on purpose, but > it does mean I cannot take the patch right now -- we need to first get > the symbol exported before we can use it in 9p. > > > As things stand I'd rather have this patch wait one cycle for this than > revert to manipulating rcu directly like you did first -- if you're up > for it you can send a patch to get it exported first and I'll pick this > patch up next cycle, or I can take care of that too if you don't want to > bother. > > Letting you tell me which you prefer, > -- > Dominique I am willing to send in a patch to have the missing symbol exported as well as resend my previous one with the commit message reworded. Thanks.