[LU-5269] Can't build b1_8 on kernel 2.6.32-431

• Status: Resolved
• Project: Lustre
• Affects Version/s: Lustre 1.8.9
• Type: Bug
• Priority: Minor
• Reporter: Carlos Thomaz (Inactive)
• Assignee: Peter Jones
• Resolution: Duplicate
• Labels: build

Environment

Centos 6.5 kernel 2.6.32-431

• Severity: 3
• Epic: client

Description

Hi,

I'm unable to build a 1.8.9 client on centos 6.5 kernel 2.6.32-431 due "Section mismatch in reference from the function ptlrpc_init() to the function .exit.text:ldlm_exit()" .

This issues seems to be replicated and reported on 2.2.x and 2.4.x (LU-867) I've built the 2.4.3 client with no problems from source RPM and also from git.

I'm wondering if the proposed fixes on ticket LU-867 has been applied to the b1_8 branch. Any suggestions are appreciated.

This is the output from "make -j16"

<snip>
CC [M] /root/lustre_git/lustre-release/lustre/ptlrpc/wiretest.o
LD [M] /root/lustre_git/lustre-release/lustre/ptlrpc/ptlrpc.o
WARNING: /root/lustre_git/lustre-release/lustre/ptlrpc/ptlrpc.o(.init.text+0x5bd): Section mismatch in reference from the function ptlrpc_init() to the function .exit.text:ldlm_exit()
The function __init ptlrpc_init() references
a function __exit ldlm_exit().
This is often seen when error handling in the init function
uses functionality in the exit path.
The fix is often to remove the __exit annotation of
ldlm_exit() so it may be used outside an exit section.

LD [M] /root/lustre_git/lustre-release/lustre/obdclass/obdclass.o
LD [M] /root/lustre_git/lustre-release/lustre/obdclass/llog_test.o
make[4]: *** [/root/lustre_git/lustre-release/lustre] Error 2
make[3]: *** [_module_/root/lustre_git/lustre-release] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/kernels/2.6.32-431.5.1.el6.x86_64'
make[2]: *** [modules] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/root/lustre_git/lustre-release'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/root/lustre_git/lustre-release'
make: *** [all] Error 2

Thank you.

Comments

[Peter Jones]

Carlos

Is this just a duplicate of LU-5237?

Peter

[Carlos Thomaz (Inactive)]

Hi Peter.

Looks like it is a duplicate.
Sorry about that, I haven't noticed the LU-5237 before.

Thank you
Carlos

[Peter Jones]

No problem at all Carlos.