From: Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix ext4 bitops Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:11:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <20080201200208.GA28274@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org> <20080201122257.9524c2bb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080201210404.GA31271@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org> <20080203121238.GD18211@osiris.ibm.com> <20080204045025.GA7494@skywalker> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Heiko Carstens , Bastian Blank , Andrew Morton , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Development , Linux/PPC Development , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080204045025.GA7494@skywalker> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org 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 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 -- geert@linux-m68k.org 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