Hi all,
After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (arm defconfig)
failed like this:
fs/built-in.o: In function `nfsd_reply_cache_stats_show':
super.c:(.text+0x87308): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
Probably caused by commit 187da2f90879 ("nfsd: keep track of the max and
average time to search the cache") which adds a divide by u64
(num_searches).
I have reverted that commit and the following one for today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:42:19 +1100
Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (arm defconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> fs/built-in.o: In function `nfsd_reply_cache_stats_show':
> super.c:(.text+0x87308): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
>
> Probably caused by commit 187da2f90879 ("nfsd: keep track of the max and
> average time to search the cache") which adds a divide by u64
> (num_searches).
>
> I have reverted that commit and the following one for today.
Thanks, known problem...
Looks like Bruce's tree has an older version of that patch series. I
think we just need to get him to drop that one and merge the new one.
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 07:10:54AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:42:19 +1100
> Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (arm defconfig)
> > failed like this:
> >
> > fs/built-in.o: In function `nfsd_reply_cache_stats_show':
> > super.c:(.text+0x87308): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
> >
> > Probably caused by commit 187da2f90879 ("nfsd: keep track of the max and
> > average time to search the cache") which adds a divide by u64
> > (num_searches).
> >
> > I have reverted that commit and the following one for today.
>
> Thanks, known problem...
>
> Looks like Bruce's tree has an older version of that patch series. I
> think we just need to get him to drop that one and merge the new one.
Arrgh, sorry--could you remind me which is the new one?
--b.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 07:33:01 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 07:10:54AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:42:19 +1100
> > Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (arm defconfig)
> > > failed like this:
> > >
> > > fs/built-in.o: In function `nfsd_reply_cache_stats_show':
> > > super.c:(.text+0x87308): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
> > >
> > > Probably caused by commit 187da2f90879 ("nfsd: keep track of the max and
> > > average time to search the cache") which adds a divide by u64
> > > (num_searches).
> > >
> > > I have reverted that commit and the following one for today.
> >
> > Thanks, known problem...
> >
> > Looks like Bruce's tree has an older version of that patch series. I
> > think we just need to get him to drop that one and merge the new one.
>
> Arrgh, sorry--could you remind me which is the new one?
>
It was the one I sent on 3/19. Those patches (plus a couple more) are
also in the current nfsd-3.10 branch of my git tree too, so it may be
easiest to just pick them from there.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 07:38:57AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 07:33:01 -0400
> "J. Bruce Fields" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 07:10:54AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:42:19 +1100
> > > Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (arm defconfig)
> > > > failed like this:
> > > >
> > > > fs/built-in.o: In function `nfsd_reply_cache_stats_show':
> > > > super.c:(.text+0x87308): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
> > > >
> > > > Probably caused by commit 187da2f90879 ("nfsd: keep track of the max and
> > > > average time to search the cache") which adds a divide by u64
> > > > (num_searches).
> > > >
> > > > I have reverted that commit and the following one for today.
> > >
> > > Thanks, known problem...
> > >
> > > Looks like Bruce's tree has an older version of that patch series. I
> > > think we just need to get him to drop that one and merge the new one.
> >
> > Arrgh, sorry--could you remind me which is the new one?
> >
>
> It was the one I sent on 3/19. Those patches (plus a couple more) are
> also in the current nfsd-3.10 branch of my git tree too, so it may be
> easiest to just pick them from there.
I hate rewriting that branch, but OK, done: does my for-3.10 look right
to you now?
(It's still missing some of your latest patches.)
--b.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 14:05:19 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 07:38:57AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 07:33:01 -0400
> > "J. Bruce Fields" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 07:10:54AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:42:19 +1100
> > > > Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (arm defconfig)
> > > > > failed like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > fs/built-in.o: In function `nfsd_reply_cache_stats_show':
> > > > > super.c:(.text+0x87308): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
> > > > >
> > > > > Probably caused by commit 187da2f90879 ("nfsd: keep track of the max and
> > > > > average time to search the cache") which adds a divide by u64
> > > > > (num_searches).
> > > > >
> > > > > I have reverted that commit and the following one for today.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, known problem...
> > > >
> > > > Looks like Bruce's tree has an older version of that patch series. I
> > > > think we just need to get him to drop that one and merge the new one.
> > >
> > > Arrgh, sorry--could you remind me which is the new one?
> > >
> >
> > It was the one I sent on 3/19. Those patches (plus a couple more) are
> > also in the current nfsd-3.10 branch of my git tree too, so it may be
> > easiest to just pick them from there.
>
> I hate rewriting that branch, but OK, done: does my for-3.10 look right
> to you now?
>
> (It's still missing some of your latest patches.)
>
> --b.
Yeah, sorry for that... I didn't find the problem with __udivdi3
until after I had asked you to merge the earlier set. Mea culpa...
Latest branch looks good. It would be good to get the later patches in
too, but those are less important than the DRC ones.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>