Whamcloud Community JIRA https://jira.whamcloud.com This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 9.4.14 940014 05-12-2023 [LU-8471] missing EXPORT_SYMBOL for several lu_ref_* functions https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-8471 Lustre <p><a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-5829" title="too many EXPORT_SYMBOL in code" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-5829"><del>LU-5829</del></a> removed a lot of EXPORT_SYMBOL, including for the lu_ref_* functions. As these functions are only compiled in when the --enable-lu_ref is passed to configure, the breakage was missed.</p> LU-8471 missing EXPORT_SYMBOL for several lu_ref_* functions Bug Minor Resolved Fixed Frank Zago Frank Zago Tue, 2 Aug 2016 19:26:07 +0000 Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:13:54 +0000 Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:13:54 +0000 Lustre 2.9.0 0 3 <p>Frank Zago (fzago@cray.com) uploaded a new patch: <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/21640" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/21640</a><br/> Subject: <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-8471" title="missing EXPORT_SYMBOL for several lu_ref_* functions" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-8471"><del>LU-8471</del></a> obdclass: restore EXPORT_SYMBOL for lu_ref* functions<br/> Project: fs/lustre-release<br/> Branch: master<br/> Current Patch Set: 1<br/> Commit: 4449446a2f212515adc1f77de1e3ca253a0e78d5</p> <p>This patch is ready, has 3 +1, is trivial and fixes a breakage? Why is this moved to 2.10.0. Why?</p> <p>Oleg Drokin (oleg.drokin@intel.com) merged in patch <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/21640/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/21640/</a><br/> Subject: <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-8471" title="missing EXPORT_SYMBOL for several lu_ref_* functions" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-8471"><del>LU-8471</del></a> obdclass: restore EXPORT_SYMBOL for lu_ref* functions<br/> Project: fs/lustre-release<br/> Branch: master<br/> Current Patch Set: <br/> Commit: 7cf562360cdc18fe15daad58461e3caa63f0583b</p> <p>Frank - it was move to 2.10 because it did not <b>have</b> to land for 2.9 which is a release that we are trying to close out on. The expectation is that such things can still land for 2.9 if - like this - they are deemed ok to land. Had the gatekeeper required some further changes though, we would not have had the overhead of tracking this ticket unnecessarily.</p> Development Rank 1|hzyjcf: Rank (Obsolete) 9223372036854775807 Severity