Fix ext4 bitops.
Signed-off-by: Bastian Blank <[email protected]>
diff --git a/include/asm-s390/bitops.h b/include/asm-s390/bitops.h
index dba6fec..47844fc 100644
--- a/include/asm-s390/bitops.h
+++ b/include/asm-s390/bitops.h
@@ -762,6 +762,8 @@ static inline int sched_find_first_bit(unsigned long *b)
* 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24
*/
+#include <asm-generic/bitops/le.h>
+
#define ext2_set_bit(nr, addr) \
__test_and_set_bit((nr)^(__BITOPS_WORDSIZE - 8), (unsigned long *)addr)
#define ext2_set_bit_atomic(lock, nr, addr) \
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:02:08 +0100
Bastian Blank <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fix ext4 bitops.
>
This is incomplete. Please tell us what was "fixed".
If it was a build error then please quote the compile error output in the
changelog, as well as the usual description of what the problem is, and how
it was fixed.
>
> diff --git a/include/asm-s390/bitops.h b/include/asm-s390/bitops.h
> index dba6fec..47844fc 100644
> --- a/include/asm-s390/bitops.h
> +++ b/include/asm-s390/bitops.h
> @@ -762,6 +762,8 @@ static inline int sched_find_first_bit(unsigned long *b)
> * 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24
> */
>
> +#include <asm-generic/bitops/le.h>
> +
> #define ext2_set_bit(nr, addr) \
> __test_and_set_bit((nr)^(__BITOPS_WORDSIZE - 8), (unsigned long *)addr)
> #define ext2_set_bit_atomic(lock, nr, addr) \
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:22:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:02:08 +0100
> Bastian Blank <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Fix ext4 bitops.
>
> This is incomplete. Please tell us what was "fixed".
>
> If it was a build error then please quote the compile error output in the
> changelog, as well as the usual description of what the problem is, and how
> it was fixed.
| fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
| fs/ext4/mballoc.c:954: error: implicit declaration of function 'generic_find_next_le_bit'
The s390 specific bitops uses parts of the generic implementation.
Include the correct header.
> > diff --git a/include/asm-s390/bitops.h b/include/asm-s390/bitops.h
> > index dba6fec..47844fc 100644
> > --- a/include/asm-s390/bitops.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-s390/bitops.h
> > @@ -762,6 +762,8 @@ static inline int sched_find_first_bit(unsigned long *b)
> > * 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24
> > */
> >
> > +#include <asm-generic/bitops/le.h>
> > +
> > #define ext2_set_bit(nr, addr) \
> > __test_and_set_bit((nr)^(__BITOPS_WORDSIZE - 8), (unsigned long *)addr)
> > #define ext2_set_bit_atomic(lock, nr, addr) \
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
The idea of male and female are universal constants.
-- Kirk, "Metamorphosis", stardate 3219.8
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:04:04PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:22:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:02:08 +0100
> > Bastian Blank <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Fix ext4 bitops.
> >
> > This is incomplete. Please tell us what was "fixed".
> >
> > If it was a build error then please quote the compile error output in the
> > changelog, as well as the usual description of what the problem is, and how
> > it was fixed.
>
> | fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
> | fs/ext4/mballoc.c:954: error: implicit declaration of function 'generic_find_next_le_bit'
>
> The s390 specific bitops uses parts of the generic implementation.
> Include the correct header.
That doesn't work:
fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_release_inode_pa':
mballoc.c:(.text+0x95a8a): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'
fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_init_cache':
mballoc.c:(.text+0x967ea): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'
This still needs generic_find_next_le_bit which comes
from lib/find_next_bit.c. That one doesn't get built on s390 since we
don't set GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT.
Currently we have the lengthly patch below queued.
Subject: [PATCH] Implement ext2_find_next_bit.
From: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>
Fixes this compile error:
fs/ext4/mballoc.c:
In function 'ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
fs/ext4/mballoc.c:954:
error: implicit declaration of function 'generic_find_next_le_bit'
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky <[email protected]>
---
include/asm-s390/bitops.h | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 128 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff -urpN linux-2.6/include/asm-s390/bitops.h linux-2.6-patched/include/asm-s390/bitops.h
--- linux-2.6/include/asm-s390/bitops.h 2008-02-01 12:29:03.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6-patched/include/asm-s390/bitops.h 2008-02-01 12:31:39.000000000 +0100
@@ -772,8 +772,6 @@ static inline int sched_find_first_bit(u
test_and_clear_bit((nr)^(__BITOPS_WORDSIZE - 8), (unsigned long *)addr)
#define ext2_test_bit(nr, addr) \
test_bit((nr)^(__BITOPS_WORDSIZE - 8), (unsigned long *)addr)
-#define ext2_find_next_bit(addr, size, off) \
- generic_find_next_le_bit((unsigned long *)(addr), (size), (off))
#ifndef __s390x__
@@ -820,6 +818,48 @@ ext2_find_first_zero_bit(void *vaddr, un
return (res < size) ? res : size;
}
+static inline int __ext2_find_first_bit(void *vaddr, unsigned int size)
+{
+ typedef struct { long _[__BITOPS_WORDS(size)]; } addrtype;
+ unsigned long cmp, count;
+ unsigned int res;
+
+ if (!size)
+ return 0;
+ asm volatile(
+ " lhi %1,0\n"
+ " lr %2,%3\n"
+ " lhi %0,0\n"
+ " ahi %2,31\n"
+ " srl %2,5\n"
+ "0: cl %1,0(%0,%4)\n"
+ " jne 1f\n"
+ " ahi %0,4\n"
+ " brct %2,0b\n"
+ " lr %0,%3\n"
+ " j 4f\n"
+ "1: l %2,0(%0,%4)\n"
+ " sll %0,3\n"
+ " ahi %0,24\n"
+ " lhi %1,0xff\n"
+ " tmh %2,0xffff\n"
+ " jnz 2f\n"
+ " ahi %0,-16\n"
+ " srl %2,16\n"
+ "2: tml %2,0xff00\n"
+ " jnz 3f\n"
+ " ahi %0,-8\n"
+ " srl %2,8\n"
+ "3: nr %2,%1\n"
+ " ic %2,0(%2,%5)\n"
+ " alr %0,%2\n"
+ "4:"
+ : "=&a" (res), "=&d" (cmp), "=&a" (count)
+ : "a" (size), "a" (vaddr), "a" (&_sb_findmap),
+ "m" (*(addrtype *) vaddr) : "cc");
+ return (res < size) ? res : size;
+}
+
#else /* __s390x__ */
static inline unsigned long
@@ -867,6 +907,51 @@ ext2_find_first_zero_bit(void *vaddr, un
return (res < size) ? res : size;
}
+static inline unsigned long __ext2_find_first_bit(void *vaddr,
+ unsigned long size)
+{
+ typedef struct { long _[__BITOPS_WORDS(size)]; } addrtype;
+ unsigned long res, cmp, count;
+
+ if (!size)
+ return 0;
+ asm volatile(
+ " lghi %1,0\n"
+ " lgr %2,%3\n"
+ " lghi %0,0\n"
+ " aghi %2,63\n"
+ " srlg %2,%2,6\n"
+ "0: clg %1,0(%0,%4)\n"
+ " jne 1f\n"
+ " aghi %0,8\n"
+ " brct %2,0b\n"
+ " lgr %0,%3\n"
+ " j 5f\n"
+ "1: cl %1,0(%0,%4)\n"
+ " jne 2f\n"
+ " aghi %0,4\n"
+ "2: l %2,0(%0,%4)\n"
+ " sllg %0,%0,3\n"
+ " aghi %0,24\n"
+ " lghi %1,0xff\n"
+ " tmlh %2,0xffff\n"
+ " jnz 3f\n"
+ " aghi %0,-16\n"
+ " srl %2,16\n"
+ "3: tmll %2,0xff00\n"
+ " jnz 4f\n"
+ " aghi %0,-8\n"
+ " srl %2,8\n"
+ "4: ngr %2,%1\n"
+ " ic %2,0(%2,%5)\n"
+ " algr %0,%2\n"
+ "5:"
+ : "=&a" (res), "=&d" (cmp), "=&a" (count)
+ : "a" (size), "a" (vaddr), "a" (&_sb_findmap),
+ "m" (*(addrtype *) vaddr) : "cc");
+ return (res < size) ? res : size;
+}
+
#endif /* __s390x__ */
static inline int
@@ -910,6 +995,47 @@ ext2_find_next_zero_bit(void *vaddr, uns
return offset + ext2_find_first_zero_bit(p, size);
}
+static inline unsigned long ext2_find_next_bit(void *vaddr, unsigned long size,
+ unsigned long offset)
+{
+ unsigned long *addr = vaddr, *p;
+ unsigned long word, bit, set;
+
+ if (offset >= size)
+ return size;
+ bit = offset & (__BITOPS_WORDSIZE - 1);
+ offset -= bit;
+ size -= offset;
+ p = addr + offset / __BITOPS_WORDSIZE;
+ if (bit) {
+#ifndef __s390x__
+ asm volatile(
+ " ic %0,0(%1)\n"
+ " icm %0,2,1(%1)\n"
+ " icm %0,4,2(%1)\n"
+ " icm %0,8,3(%1)"
+ : "=&a" (word) : "a" (p), "m" (*p) : "cc");
+#else
+ asm volatile(
+ " lrvg %0,%1"
+ : "=a" (word) : "m" (*p) );
+#endif
+ /*
+ * s390 version of __ffs returns __BITOPS_WORDSIZE
+ * if no one bit is present in the word.
+ */
+ set = __ffs(word >> bit) + bit;
+ if (set >= size)
+ return size + offset;
+ if (set < __BITOPS_WORDSIZE)
+ return set + offset;
+ offset += __BITOPS_WORDSIZE;
+ size -= __BITOPS_WORDSIZE;
+ p++;
+ }
+ return offset + __ext2_find_first_bit(p, size);
+}
+
#include <asm-generic/bitops/minix.h>
#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:04:04PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:22:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:02:08 +0100
> > > Bastian Blank <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fix ext4 bitops.
> > >
> > > This is incomplete. Please tell us what was "fixed".
> > >
> > > If it was a build error then please quote the compile error output in the
> > > changelog, as well as the usual description of what the problem is, and how
> > > it was fixed.
> >
> > | fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
> > | fs/ext4/mballoc.c:954: error: implicit declaration of function 'generic_find_next_le_bit'
> >
> > The s390 specific bitops uses parts of the generic implementation.
> > Include the correct header.
>
> That doesn't work:
>
> fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_release_inode_pa':
> mballoc.c:(.text+0x95a8a): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'
> fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_init_cache':
> mballoc.c:(.text+0x967ea): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'
>
> This still needs generic_find_next_le_bit which comes
> from lib/find_next_bit.c. That one doesn't get built on s390 since we
> don't set GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT.
> Currently we have the lengthly patch below queued.
Similar issue on m68k. As Bastian also saw it on powerpc, I'm getting the
impression the ext4 people don't (compile) test on big endian machines?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 01:39:02PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:04:04PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:22:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:02:08 +0100
> > > > Bastian Blank <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fix ext4 bitops.
> > > >
> > > > This is incomplete. Please tell us what was "fixed".
> > > >
> > > > If it was a build error then please quote the compile error output in the
> > > > changelog, as well as the usual description of what the problem is, and how
> > > > it was fixed.
> > >
> > > | fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
> > > | fs/ext4/mballoc.c:954: error: implicit declaration of function 'generic_find_next_le_bit'
> > >
> > > The s390 specific bitops uses parts of the generic implementation.
> > > Include the correct header.
> >
> > That doesn't work:
> >
> > fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_release_inode_pa':
> > mballoc.c:(.text+0x95a8a): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'
> > fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_init_cache':
> > mballoc.c:(.text+0x967ea): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'
> >
> > This still needs generic_find_next_le_bit which comes
> > from lib/find_next_bit.c. That one doesn't get built on s390 since we
> > don't set GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT.
> > Currently we have the lengthly patch below queued.
>
> Similar issue on m68k. As Bastian also saw it on powerpc, I'm getting the
> impression the ext4 people don't (compile) test on big endian machines?
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
I have sent this patches to linux-arch expecting a review from
different arch people. It is true that the patches are tested only on
powerpc, x86-64, x86. That's the primary reason of me sending the
patches to linux-arch.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=119503501127737&w=2
-aneesh
> > > > | fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
> > > > | fs/ext4/mballoc.c:954: error: implicit declaration of function 'generic_find_next_le_bit'
> > > >
> > > > The s390 specific bitops uses parts of the generic implementation.
> > > > Include the correct header.
> > >
> > > That doesn't work:
> > >
> > > fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_release_inode_pa':
> > > mballoc.c:(.text+0x95a8a): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'
> > > fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_init_cache':
> > > mballoc.c:(.text+0x967ea): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'
> > >
> > > This still needs generic_find_next_le_bit which comes
> > > from lib/find_next_bit.c. That one doesn't get built on s390 since we
> > > don't set GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT.
> > > Currently we have the lengthly patch below queued.
> >
> > Similar issue on m68k. As Bastian also saw it on powerpc, I'm getting the
> > impression the ext4 people don't (compile) test on big endian machines?
> >
> > Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> >
>
> I have sent this patches to linux-arch expecting a review from
> different arch people. It is true that the patches are tested only on
> powerpc, x86-64, x86. That's the primary reason of me sending the
> patches to linux-arch.
Is there anything special I need to do so the ext4 code actually uses
ext2_find_next_bit() ? Haven't looked at the ext4 code, but I'd like to
test if the s390 implementation is ok.
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 10:24:36AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > > > | fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
> > > > > | fs/ext4/mballoc.c:954: error: implicit declaration of function 'generic_find_next_le_bit'
> > > > >
> > > > > The s390 specific bitops uses parts of the generic implementation.
> > > > > Include the correct header.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't work:
> > > >
> > > > fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_release_inode_pa':
> > > > mballoc.c:(.text+0x95a8a): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'
> > > > fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_init_cache':
> > > > mballoc.c:(.text+0x967ea): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'
> > > >
> > > > This still needs generic_find_next_le_bit which comes
> > > > from lib/find_next_bit.c. That one doesn't get built on s390 since we
> > > > don't set GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT.
> > > > Currently we have the lengthly patch below queued.
> > >
> > > Similar issue on m68k. As Bastian also saw it on powerpc, I'm getting the
> > > impression the ext4 people don't (compile) test on big endian machines?
> > >
> > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> > >
> >
> > I have sent this patches to linux-arch expecting a review from
> > different arch people. It is true that the patches are tested only on
> > powerpc, x86-64, x86. That's the primary reason of me sending the
> > patches to linux-arch.
>
> Is there anything special I need to do so the ext4 code actually uses
> ext2_find_next_bit() ? Haven't looked at the ext4 code, but I'd like to
> test if the s390 implementation is ok.
With the latest linus kernel in git you can test it by mounting ext4
mount -t ext4dev <device> <mntpoint>
-aneesh
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 01:39:02PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:04:04PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:22:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:02:08 +0100
> > > > > Bastian Blank <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > Fix ext4 bitops.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is incomplete. Please tell us what was "fixed".
> > > > >
> > > > > If it was a build error then please quote the compile error output in the
> > > > > changelog, as well as the usual description of what the problem is, and how
> > > > > it was fixed.
> > > >
> > > > | fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
> > > > | fs/ext4/mballoc.c:954: error: implicit declaration of function 'generic_find_next_le_bit'
> > > >
> > > > The s390 specific bitops uses parts of the generic implementation.
> > > > Include the correct header.
> > >
> > > That doesn't work:
> > >
> > > fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_release_inode_pa':
> > > mballoc.c:(.text+0x95a8a): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'
> > > fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_init_cache':
> > > mballoc.c:(.text+0x967ea): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'
> > >
> > > This still needs generic_find_next_le_bit which comes
> > > from lib/find_next_bit.c. That one doesn't get built on s390 since we
> > > don't set GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT.
> > > Currently we have the lengthly patch below queued.
> >
> > Similar issue on m68k. As Bastian also saw it on powerpc, I'm getting the
> > impression the ext4 people don't (compile) test on big endian machines?
>
> I have sent this patches to linux-arch expecting a review from
> different arch people. It is true that the patches are tested only on
> powerpc, x86-64, x86. That's the primary reason of me sending the
> patches to linux-arch.
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=119503501127737&w=2
Sometimes it's difficult to see what can go wrong due to a single patch that
just adds a #define. Sorry, I missed the lack of prototype for
generic_find_next_le_bit() and that we don't set GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT,
just like s390.
And yes, usually I rely on the -mm autocompiler to catch things like
this, but this time it didn't work out...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds