Re: [PATCH] Introduce ext4_find_next_bit

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:41:03 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:55:05 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Also add generic_find_next_le_bit
> >>
> >> This gets used by the ext4 multi block allocator patches.
> >>
> > 
> > arm allmodconfig:
> > 
> > fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function `ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
> > fs/ext4/mballoc.c:836: error: implicit declaration of function `ext2_find_next_bit'
> > 
> > This patch makes my head spin.
> > 
> > Why did we declare generic_find_next_le_bit() in
> > include/asm-powerpc/bitops.h (wrong) as well as in
> > include/asm-generic/bitops/le.h (presumably correct)?
> > 
> 
> I was following the coding style used for rest of the APIs
> like ext4_set_bit.

Well.  There's quite a bit of cruft in there.  If you do come across
something which isn't right, please do try to find the time to fix it up
first.

That might be non-trivial - powerpc does seem to have gone off on a strange
tangent there.

> 
> > Why is it touching a powerpc file and no any other architectures? 
> > Something screwed up in powerpc land?
> > 
> > And why did arm break?
> 
> arm and below list of arch doesn't include the asm-generic/bitops/ext2-non-atomic.h 
> 
> I did a grep and that list the below architectures as also affected.
> arm, m68k, m68knommu, s390
> 
> > 
> > Shudder.  Anyway, please fix, and if that fix requires that various
> > braindamaged be repaired, please repair the braindamage rather than going
> > along with it.
> > 
> > 
> 
> That should be a separate patch altogether. I wanted to do the cleanup
> along with the usages such as but never got time to do the same.
> 
> #define ocfs2_set_bit ext2_set_bit
> #define udf_set_bit(nr,addr) ext2_set_bit(nr,addr)
> direct usage in mb
> md/bitmap.c +799
> md/dm-log.c +177
> 
> I will send a patch tomorrow that fix  arm and other architectures. I guess the cleanup
> can be a separate patch ? 
> 

Yes, that's a separate work, thanks.