From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use do_div() instead of native 64-bit division in btrfs_ordered_sum_size() Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:07:04 -0400 Message-ID: <1216847224.3019.137.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> References: <1216697528.18980.34.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20080723111309.GA19988@infradead.org> <1216819706.6932.146.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Mason Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1216819706.6932.146.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> List-ID: On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 09:28 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 07:13 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Chris, can you please put this patch in? Without it btrfs can't be > > loaded on 32bit platforms. > > > > I've pushed out a slightly different fix. The ordered extents are > based on ram writeback, and so an unsigned long is enough. Does the job for me, although we still need the s/BUG_ON(spin_trylock(&tree->lock))/assert_spin_locked(&tree->lock)/ patch I sent a few days ago. Now I can actually build the module, load it and avoid it hitting a BUG_ON() when it first tries to mount, I can perhaps move on to doing something more useful with it... :) -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation