From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1OdYXW-0004h8-33 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:01:02 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48251 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OdYXS-0004h0-MD for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:00:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OdYXR-0003xj-7r for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:00:58 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f176.google.com ([209.85.216.176]:61413) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OdYXR-0003xe-5W for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:00:57 -0400 Received: by qyk34 with SMTP id 34so2580108qyk.0 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:00:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:content-type; bh=z9UXKrRJDuQQcIiTA4Ug/zAbkiCFXX1z0aV5upNceBQ=; b=h6O856//CdcTXS9pZah/O2KXEpA1hTOEJ+3BQardVDwmLTDLc8lzHx2b0OrIX339aG 9G2DAW8N7AiaVCx88Jh5zz5AN3vst3G14AF0UnvVJpyNaK1NbG22Foebtc0Grw1an+yW 0huIKhdATm8KgmsOCfvrHRs3KQl2JBjHcekdY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :content-type; b=U3CfXI7oSWzb/0M05/qgDwJXF5hhzCluedY3Fhc9XF+wm7PZ9L73yZDiUYk4MYW4jW DQWbQITLRXlKymH6l51ZkXXfVnurGMHMSGXsSJZATLOfVMq3bhnzB9nEJtWn2Y/5zRcr nXRwUfqhJV36s5akQ6lTBHbIcRiFhEQ/tAeqY= Received: by 10.224.80.4 with SMTP id r4mr5240531qak.45.1280192455672; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.21.179] (bas1-toronto05-1177663517.dsl.bell.ca [70.49.184.29]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j28sm4856209qck.23.2010.07.26.18.00.54 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C4E2FC5.10607@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:00:53 -0400 From: Doug Nazar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca, grub-devel@gnu.org References: 20100726210728.GW2632@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030707030501060900070902" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: Big Endian fix patch (was: Re: Couple more fixes for Linux raid metadata 1.x support) X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:01:00 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030707030501060900070902 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 01:20:34PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 01:20:34PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > >/ Now this is on a powerpc64 system, so it is big endian. That number by/ > >/ the way is FFFFFFFFFFFFFF00./ > > > >/ I wonder if some part of the 1.x raid handling code has an endianess bug./ > > > >/ Got any guesses I can try before I just go convert back to 0.9 raids?/ > >/ I really hate giving up on things that ought to work and loose the/ > >/ debugging opportunity./ > > Turns out it very much was endian issues. > > Here is a patch that fixes it for me. > > I am using your two recent patches as well. I'd worried about endianess while testing. I've been spending the last 2 days trying to setup a QEMU powerpc64 image to run some regression testing but it's taking forever (combination of old P4 computer and QEMU giving me random errors from the cdrom drive). I'll run it through the grinder in a bit. Doug --------------030707030501060900070902 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 01:20:34PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 01:20:34PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > Now this is on a powerpc64 system, so it is big endian.  That number by
> > the way is FFFFFFFFFFFFFF00.
> >
> > I wonder if some part of the 1.x raid handling code has an endianess bug.
> >
> > Got any guesses I can try before I just go convert back to 0.9 raids?
> > I really hate giving up on things that ought to work and loose the
> > debugging opportunity.
>
> Turns out it very much was endian issues.
>
> Here is a patch that fixes it for me.
>
> I am using your two recent patches as well.
I'd worried about endianess while testing. I've been spending the last 2 days trying to setup a QEMU powerpc64 image to run some regression testing but it's taking forever (combination of old P4 computer and QEMU giving me random errors from the cdrom drive).

I'll run it through the grinder in a bit.

Doug

--------------030707030501060900070902--