From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>
Subject: RE: scsi-next fail to be compiled
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:52:29 -0500
Message-ID: <1280263949.2833.441.camel@mulgrave.site>
References: <4C4F2BC0.6030905@kernel.org>
	 ,<1280257446.2833.268.camel@mulgrave.site>
	 <5E4F49720D0BAD499EE1F01232234BA871287C9628@AVEXMB1.qlogic.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:52307 "EHLO mx1.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752810Ab0G0Uwe (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:52:34 -0400
In-Reply-To: <5E4F49720D0BAD499EE1F01232234BA871287C9628@AVEXMB1.qlogic.org>
Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
To: Ravi Anand <ravi.anand@qlogic.com>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, Vikas Chaudhary <vikas.chaudhary@qlogic.com>, Karen Higgins <karen.higgins@qlogic.com>, Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com>, linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 13:45 -0700, Ravi Anand wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 2010-07-27 James Bottomley wrote:
> >On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 11:56 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > LD      drivers/scsi/built-in.o
> > drivers/scsi/qla4xxx/built-in.o: In function `qla82xx_idc_unlock':
> > (.text+0x8814): multiple definition of `qla82xx_idc_unlock'
> > drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/built-in.o:(.text+0x2ea14): first defined here
> > drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/built-in.o:(.text+0x30c56): first defined here
> > make[1]: *** [drivers/scsi/built-in.o] Error 1
> > make: *** [drivers/scsi/] Error 2
> 
> >This is because exactly the same functions appear in the qla2xxx/ and
> >qla4xxx/ directories
> 
> >Qlogic people, please get this sorted out now, otherwise I'll drop the
> >qla4xxx update before sending to Linus
> 
> We will try to resolve this ASAP.

Thanks

>   When are you planning to send it to Linus ?

Whenever he opens the merge window ... he's been making noises like it
will be this week.

> >The best option would be to separate out the 82xx functions so that both
> >2xxx and 4xxx can use them.  In the interim, you could add a
> >discriminator prefix.
> 
> We will put in discriminator prefix and  repost the patches.

Just the one patch that adds the 82xx support, if possible ... that way
I can just swap the bad one out.

James