Hello,
> > net/network.a(ipv4.o): In function `ip_masq_mod_lkp_unlink':
> > ipv4.o(.text+0x304f): undefined reference to `spin_lock_bh'
> > ipv4.o(.text+0x307a): undefined reference to `spin_unlock_bh'
> > ipv4.o(.text+0x308f): undefined reference to `spin_unlock_bh'
> > net/network.a(ipv4.o): In function `ip_masq_mod_lkp_link':
> > ipv4.o(.text+0x30ab): undefined reference to `spin_lock_bh'
> > ipv4.o(.text+0x30c2): undefined reference to `spin_unlock_bh'
>
> Yeah. One got away
>
> Add a #include <asm/spinlock.h> and then
>
> s/lock_bh/lock_irq/
>
> To fix the lock/unlocks.
Better to revert the ip_masq_mod changes. We don't
have spin_*_bh in 2.2 and write_*_bh is defined in
include/net/ip_masq.h. May be we have to define spin_*_bh
there? Just for this change?
The only problem I see is that the mfw module uses
start_bh_atomic twice near the masq_mod_lock locking. But this
is not a big problem.
May be we can change __mfw_add to mfw_add and to
move the locking there. By this way we will move
ip_masq_mod_inc_nent after the mfw_lock is unlocked.
This change seems only as write_* to spin_* fix.
Is there any oops?
Regards
-- Julian Anastasov <uli@linux.tu-varna.acad.bg>- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:26 EST