[GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Theodore Ts'o]

Note: there will be a minor patch conflict since you included an
earlier version of the"atomically set inode->i_flags in
ext4_set_inode_flags()" in 3.14 bbefore you decided that
set_mask_bits() wasn't a good interface to be exposing because people
could too easily misuse it.  The merge conflict is pretty obvious.

Let me know if you want me to send a separate cleanup patch which
removes set_mask_bits(), or whether you just want to drop it from
include/linux/bitops.h while fixing up the merge conflict.

Cheers,

						- Ted

The following changes since commit 92e3b40537707001d17bbad800d150ab04e53bf4:

  jbd2: fix use after free in jbd2_journal_start_reserved() (2014-02-17 20:33:01 -0500)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git tags/ext4_for_linus

for you to fetch changes up to ad6599ab3ac98a4474544086e048ce86ec15a4d1:

  ext4: fix premature freeing of partial clusters split across leaf blocks (2014-04-01 19:49:30 -0400)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Major changes for 3.14 include support for the newly added ZERO_RANGE
and COLLAPSE_RANGE fallocate operations, and scalability improvements
in the jbd2 layer and in xattr handling when the extended attributes
spill over into an external block.

Other than that, the usual clean ups and minor bug fixes.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Carpenter (1):
      ext4: remove an unneeded check in mext_page_mkuptodate()

Darrick J. Wong (1):
      ext4: merge uninitialized extents

Eric Sandeen (1):
      ext4: remove unused ac_ex_scanned

Eric Whitney (5):
      ext4: fix error return from ext4_ext_handle_uninitialized_extents()
      ext4: silence warnings in extent status tree debugging code
      ext4: delete path dealloc code in ext4_ext_handle_uninitialized_extents
      ext4: fix partial cluster handling for bigalloc file systems
      ext4: fix premature freeing of partial clusters split across leaf blocks

Fabian Frederick (1):
      ext4: Add __init marking to init_inodecache

Jan Kara (1):
      ext4: Speedup WB_SYNC_ALL pass called from sync(2)

Lukas Czerner (5):
      ext4: translate fallocate mode bits to strings
      ext4: Update inode i_size after the preallocation
      ext4: refactor ext4_fallocate code
      ext4: Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for fallocate
      ext4: remove unneeded test of ret variable

Matthew Wilcox (2):
      ext4: make ext4_block_zero_page_range static
      ext4: fix comment typo

Maxim Patlasov (1):
      ext4: avoid exposure of stale data in ext4_punch_hole()

Namjae Jeon (1):
      ext4: Add support FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for fallocate

Patrick Palka (1):
      ext4: address a benign compiler warning

Rashika Kheria (1):
      jbd2: mark file-local functions as static

T Makphaibulchoke (3):
      fs/mbcache.c: change block and index hash chain to hlist_bl_node
      fs/mbcache.c: doucple the locking of local from global data
      ext4: each filesystem creates and uses its own mb_cache

Theodore Ts'o (18):
      ext4: clean up error handling in swap_inode_boot_loader()
      ext4: add ext4_es_store_pblock_status()
      ext4: don't calculate total xattr header size unless needed
      ext4: make sure ex.fe_logical is initialized
      ext4: avoid possible overflow in ext4_map_blocks()
      jbd2: don't unplug after writing revoke records
      jbd2: don't hold j_state_lock while calling wake_up()
      jbd2: calculate statistics without holding j_state_lock and j_list_lock
      jbd2: add transaction to checkpoint list earlier
      jbd2: check jh->b_transaction without taking j_list_lock
      jbd2: minimize region locked by j_list_lock in journal_get_create_access()
      jbd2: minimize region locked by j_list_lock in jbd2_journal_forget()
      jbd2: improve error messages for inconsistent journal heads
      fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
      ext4: only call sync_filesystm() when remounting read-only
      ext4: kill i_version support for Hurd-castrated file systems
      ext4: optimize Hurd tests when reading/writing inodes
      ext4: atomically set inode->i_flags in ext4_set_inode_flags()

 fs/adfs/super.c             |   1 +
 fs/affs/super.c             |   1 +
 fs/befs/linuxvfs.c          |   1 +
 fs/btrfs/super.c            |   1 +
 fs/cifs/cifsfs.c            |   1 +
 fs/coda/inode.c             |   1 +
 fs/cramfs/inode.c           |   1 +
 fs/debugfs/inode.c          |   1 +
 fs/devpts/inode.c           |   1 +
 fs/efs/super.c              |   1 +
 fs/ext2/super.c             |   1 +
 fs/ext3/super.c             |   2 +
 fs/ext4/ext4.h              |  11 +-
 fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.c         |  10 +
 fs/ext4/extents.c           | 818 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 fs/ext4/extents_status.c    |  28 +-
 fs/ext4/extents_status.h    |   9 +
 fs/ext4/inode.c             | 130 ++++++----
 fs/ext4/ioctl.c             |  24 +-
 fs/ext4/mballoc.c           |   7 +-
 fs/ext4/mballoc.h           |   4 +-
 fs/ext4/move_extent.c       |   5 +-
 fs/ext4/super.c             |  40 ++-
 fs/ext4/xattr.c             |  59 +++--
 fs/ext4/xattr.h             |   6 +-
 fs/f2fs/super.c             |   2 +
 fs/fat/inode.c              |   2 +
 fs/freevxfs/vxfs_super.c    |   1 +
 fs/fuse/inode.c             |   1 +
 fs/gfs2/super.c             |   2 +
 fs/hfs/super.c              |   1 +
 fs/hfsplus/super.c          |   1 +
 fs/hpfs/super.c             |   2 +
 fs/inode.c                  |  31 +++
 fs/isofs/inode.c            |   1 +
 fs/jbd2/commit.c            |  77 +++---
 fs/jbd2/journal.c           |  10 +-
 fs/jbd2/transaction.c       |  46 ++--
 fs/jffs2/super.c            |   1 +
 fs/jfs/super.c              |   1 +
 fs/mbcache.c                | 540 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 fs/minix/inode.c            |   1 +
 fs/ncpfs/inode.c            |   1 +
 fs/nfs/super.c              |   2 +
 fs/nilfs2/super.c           |   1 +
 fs/ntfs/super.c             |   2 +
 fs/ocfs2/super.c            |   2 +
 fs/openpromfs/inode.c       |   1 +
 fs/proc/root.c              |   2 +
 fs/pstore/inode.c           |   1 +
 fs/qnx4/inode.c             |   1 +
 fs/qnx6/inode.c             |   1 +
 fs/reiserfs/super.c         |   1 +
 fs/romfs/super.c            |   1 +
 fs/squashfs/super.c         |   1 +
 fs/super.c                  |   2 -
 fs/sysv/inode.c             |   1 +
 fs/ubifs/super.c            |   1 +
 fs/udf/super.c              |   1 +
 fs/ufs/super.c              |   1 +
 fs/xfs/xfs_super.c          |   1 +
 include/linux/fs.h          |   3 +
 include/linux/mbcache.h     |  12 +-
 include/trace/events/ext4.h | 102 +++++---
 64 files changed, 1520 insertions(+), 505 deletions(-)

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Linus Torvalds]

Btw, since I'm planning on getting to the filesystem pulls later today
(or perhaps tomorrow), I wanted to check: are you ok with the ext4
parts of the cross-rename patches from Miklos?

They are currently at

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/vfs.git cross-rename

in case you want to refresh your memory.

I have this memory of having seen an acked-by from you last time they
flew past, but looking at Miklos branch that isn't in the commit logs
at least, so maybe my memory is crap. It wouldn't be the first time.

I think the concerns about renameat2() got all sorted out, and I'm
planning on pulling them, but I want to make sure that there aren't
any objections to them.

Al added to the cc for the same reason.

              Linus

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 12:39:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Btw, since I'm planning on getting to the filesystem pulls later today
> (or perhaps tomorrow), I wanted to check: are you ok with the ext4
> parts of the cross-rename patches from Miklos?
> 
> They are currently at
> 
>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/vfs.git cross-rename
> 
> in case you want to refresh your memory.

I've pulled in the cross-rename branch to my test branch and run a set
of tests, and it passes.  Unfortunately I don't believe Miklos
contributed tests for renameat(2) to xfstests, so we don't have any
on-point testing of renameat() and cross-rename, but it's at least not
triggering any failures on the existing tests.

I've also reviewed the patches again, so:

Acked-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>

						- Ted

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Jan Kara]

On Thu 03-04-14 23:53:08, Ted Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 12:39:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Btw, since I'm planning on getting to the filesystem pulls later today
> > (or perhaps tomorrow), I wanted to check: are you ok with the ext4
> > parts of the cross-rename patches from Miklos?
> > 
> > They are currently at
> > 
> >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/vfs.git cross-rename
> > 
> > in case you want to refresh your memory.
> 
> I've pulled in the cross-rename branch to my test branch and run a set
> of tests, and it passes.  Unfortunately I don't believe Miklos
> contributed tests for renameat(2) to xfstests, so we don't have any
> on-point testing of renameat() and cross-rename, but it's at least not
> triggering any failures on the existing tests.
  Actually Miklos has contributed xfstests tests. I'm not sure if they were
merged but I've seen them flying by.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> On Thu 03-04-14 23:53:08, Ted Tso wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 12:39:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > Btw, since I'm planning on getting to the filesystem pulls later today
>> > (or perhaps tomorrow), I wanted to check: are you ok with the ext4
>> > parts of the cross-rename patches from Miklos?
>> >
>> > They are currently at
>> >
>> >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/vfs.git cross-rename
>> >
>> > in case you want to refresh your memory.
>>
>> I've pulled in the cross-rename branch to my test branch and run a set
>> of tests, and it passes.  Unfortunately I don't believe Miklos
>> contributed tests for renameat(2) to xfstests, so we don't have any
>> on-point testing of renameat() and cross-rename, but it's at least not
>> triggering any failures on the existing tests.
>   Actually Miklos has contributed xfstests tests. I'm not sure if they were
> merged but I've seen them flying by.

Yes:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=139523745403081&w=2

The following cases are tested:

1) plain rename (flags = 0)
2) cross rename
3) noreplace rename

For each the following are tested:

a) same directory rename
b) cross directory rename

And all combinations of source and dest being:

- negative
- regular file
- symlink
- empty dir
- nonempty dir

After the operation the file type of both source and dest are checked
(or the error value returned).

Thanks,
Miklos

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Theodore Ts'o]

Ah yes, I had forgotten that you had sent those patches, thanks.

It looks like that since you worded it as "just RFC for now since they
aren't in 3.15 yet", the xfstests folks never actually accepted your
changes into xfstests, and so I never picked it up.

For future reference, the tests for COLLAPSE_RANGE and ZERO_RANGE were
accepted into xfstests well before the merge window opened, and that
was awfully convenience since we could pull the latest from the
xfstests.git tree and do automated testing while those patches were in
the ext4 and xfs trees.

So feel free to be a bit more insistent about asking for your xfstests
to be merged upstream; you don't have to wait until the changes reach
mainline.  If it's clear that the patches are going to be accepted,
and they are in the subsystem trees, that's a fine time to push to get
the changes into xfstests.

Cheers,

						- Ted

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 07:16:25PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=139523745403081&w=2

I tried applying this patch on top of xfstests commit 3948694eb1, but
running on ext4.git's test branch, which has the your cross-rename
patches applied:

http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git/commit/?h=test&id=b7bcc46d4f80139930c2e6bd04ff8ebbff121bc9

I see the following:

BEGIN TEST: Ext4 4k block Fri Apr  4 23:21:50 UTC 2014
Device: /dev/vdb
mk2fs options: -q
mount options: -o block_validity
FSTYP         -- ext4
PLATFORM      -- Linux/i686 candygram 3.14.0-00061-gb7bcc46
MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -q /dev/vdc
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o acl,user_xattr -o block_validity /dev/vdc /vdc

generic/323		[23:22:03] [23:22:04] [not run]
	generic/323 -- kernel doesn't support renameat2 syscall
generic/324		[23:22:04] [23:22:05] [not run]
	generic/324 -- kernel doesn't support renameat2 syscall
generic/325		[23:22:05] [23:22:06] [not run]
	generic/325 -- kernel doesn't support renameat2 syscall
Not run: generic/323 generic/324 generic/325

Is there anything obvious that I might be doing wrong?

Thanks,

							- Ted

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 07:16:25PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=139523745403081&w=2
>
> I tried applying this patch on top of xfstests commit 3948694eb1, but
> running on ext4.git's test branch, which has the your cross-rename
> patches applied:
>
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git/commit/?h=test&id=b7bcc46d4f80139930c2e6bd04ff8ebbff121bc9
>
> I see the following:
>
> BEGIN TEST: Ext4 4k block Fri Apr  4 23:21:50 UTC 2014
> Device: /dev/vdb
> mk2fs options: -q
> mount options: -o block_validity
> FSTYP         -- ext4
> PLATFORM      -- Linux/i686 candygram 3.14.0-00061-gb7bcc46
> MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -q /dev/vdc
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o acl,user_xattr -o block_validity /dev/vdc /vdc
>
> generic/323             [23:22:03] [23:22:04] [not run]
>         generic/323 -- kernel doesn't support renameat2 syscall
> generic/324             [23:22:04] [23:22:05] [not run]
>         generic/324 -- kernel doesn't support renameat2 syscall
> generic/325             [23:22:05] [23:22:06] [not run]
>         generic/325 -- kernel doesn't support renameat2 syscall
> Not run: generic/323 generic/324 generic/325
>
> Is there anything obvious that I might be doing wrong?

I only wired up the syscall for x86_64.   Who's responsible for adding
all the syscall tables for the various architectures?

Thanks,
Miklos

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:15:36PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >
> > Is there anything obvious that I might be doing wrong?
> 
> I only wired up the syscall for x86_64.   Who's responsible for adding
> all the syscall tables for the various architectures?

Ah, and I was testing with i386, not x86_64, so that it explains that.

It's been quite a while since I've worked to add a new system call,
but my impressure is that in general the person who creates the new
system call needs to reach out to the architecture maintainers
(preferably with a patch :-), since otherwise the architecture
maintainers would have no idea that a new syscall has been added.

					- Ted

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:15:36PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> >
>> > Is there anything obvious that I might be doing wrong?
>>
>> I only wired up the syscall for x86_64.   Who's responsible for adding
>> all the syscall tables for the various architectures?
>
> Ah, and I was testing with i386, not x86_64, so that it explains that.
>
> It's been quite a while since I've worked to add a new system call,
> but my impressure is that in general the person who creates the new
> system call needs to reach out to the architecture maintainers
> (preferably with a patch :-), since otherwise the architecture

Preferably the creator of the new system call emails linux-arch.
Patches are always nice to have, but they may cause conflicts w.r.t.
syscall numbering.

> maintainers would have no idea that a new syscall has been added.

If i386 has the new syscall, scripts/checksyscalls.sh will catch it and
inform us about it during our next kernel build.

If you add it to x86_64 only, bad luck for anyone else ;-)

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

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Dave Chinner]

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 04:23:23PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Ah yes, I had forgotten that you had sent those patches, thanks.
> 
> It looks like that since you worded it as "just RFC for now since they
> aren't in 3.15 yet", the xfstests folks never actually accepted your
> changes into xfstests, and so I never picked it up.
> 
> For future reference, the tests for COLLAPSE_RANGE and ZERO_RANGE were
> accepted into xfstests well before the merge window opened, and that
> was awfully convenience since we could pull the latest from the
> xfstests.git tree and do automated testing while those patches were in
> the ext4 and xfs trees.

The xfstests for those features were merged into xfstests at the
same time the the kernel code was pulled into the XFS tree. i.e.
once the kernel code had been merged into a maintainer's tree. That's
why they were there for the testing you needed to do with ext4.

There hasn't been any XFS patches written for renameat2 and the
patches that were posted as "here's some tests, maybe we'll get
renameat2 into 3.15" so there hasn't been any urgency indicated to
the xfstests folks that they were needed. We've been pretty much out
of the loop here....

> So feel free to be a bit more insistent about asking for your xfstests
> to be merged upstream; you don't have to wait until the changes reach
> mainline.

Actually, we don't add tests to xfstests until the patches that they
test are committed to an upstream repository somewhere. i.e. we need
some guarantee that the code is actually accepted by a maintainer
and is on it's way to mainline before we'll include the tests. We
don't want to have to waste time on reviewing and committing tests
for functionality that never goes into the mainline tree....

> If it's clear that the patches are going to be accepted,
> and they are in the subsystem trees, that's a fine time to push to get
> the changes into xfstests.

I asked whether this patchset is going to make 3.15 and reviewed the
xfstests patches that had been posted earlier today. About 12 hours
before I read this thread.... ;)

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Heiko Carstens]

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:25:30PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:15:36PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Is there anything obvious that I might be doing wrong?
> >>
> >> I only wired up the syscall for x86_64.   Who's responsible for adding
> >> all the syscall tables for the various architectures?
> >
> > Ah, and I was testing with i386, not x86_64, so that it explains that.
> >
> > It's been quite a while since I've worked to add a new system call,
> > but my impressure is that in general the person who creates the new
> > system call needs to reach out to the architecture maintainers
> > (preferably with a patch :-), since otherwise the architecture
> 
> Preferably the creator of the new system call emails linux-arch.
> Patches are always nice to have, but they may cause conflicts w.r.t.
> syscall numbering.
> 
> > maintainers would have no idea that a new syscall has been added.
> 
> If i386 has the new syscall, scripts/checksyscalls.sh will catch it and
> inform us about it during our next kernel build.
> 
> If you add it to x86_64 only, bad luck for anyone else ;-)

Also it would be nice if somebody would pick up the patch below as well :)

>From 97cdc756ca508f2200ae0cebf1cf1f1b8daa711b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 12:55:46 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] include/linux/syscalls.h: add sys_renameat2() prototype

Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
---
 include/linux/syscalls.h | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/syscalls.h b/include/linux/syscalls.h
index 2aa8b749f13d..697ceb70a9a9 100644
--- a/include/linux/syscalls.h
+++ b/include/linux/syscalls.h
@@ -748,6 +748,9 @@ asmlinkage long sys_linkat(int olddfd, const char __user *oldname,
 			   int newdfd, const char __user *newname, int flags);
 asmlinkage long sys_renameat(int olddfd, const char __user * oldname,
 			     int newdfd, const char __user * newname);
+asmlinkage long sys_renameat2(int olddfd, const char __user *oldname,
+			      int newdfd, const char __user *newname,
+			      unsigned int flags);
 asmlinkage long sys_futimesat(int dfd, const char __user *filename,
 			      struct timeval __user *utimes);
 asmlinkage long sys_faccessat(int dfd, const char __user *filename, int mode);
-- 
1.8.5.5

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:25:30PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > maintainers would have no idea that a new syscall has been added.
> 
> If i386 has the new syscall, scripts/checksyscalls.sh will catch it and
> inform us about it during our next kernel build.
> 
> If you add it to x86_64 only, bad luck for anyone else ;-)

Maybe we should change scripts/checksyscalls.sh to check the x86_64
list of syscalls, and not i386?

It's been a long time since "all the world's an i386" --- these days,
it's "all the world's an x86_64".  :-)

						- Ted

"Thou shalt foreswear, renounce, and abjure the vile heresy which
claimeth that ``All the world's a VAX'', and have no commerce with the
benighted heathens who cling to this barbarous belief, that the days
of thy program may be long even though the days of thy current machine
be short."  -- The Ten Commandments for C Programmers

- http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/ten-commandments.html

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 4:25 AM, Heiko Carstens
<heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Also it would be nice if somebody would pick up the patch below as well :)

Picked up.

              Linus

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:25:30PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > maintainers would have no idea that a new syscall has been added.
>>
>> If i386 has the new syscall, scripts/checksyscalls.sh will catch it and
>> inform us about it during our next kernel build.
>>
>> If you add it to x86_64 only, bad luck for anyone else ;-)
>
> Maybe we should change scripts/checksyscalls.sh to check the x86_64
> list of syscalls, and not i386?
>
> It's been a long time since "all the world's an i386" --- these days,
> it's "all the world's an x86_64".  :-)

Let the kbuild people (and their employers) fight over it...

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

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 04/09/2014 09:40 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:25:30PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>> maintainers would have no idea that a new syscall has been added.
>>>
>>> If i386 has the new syscall, scripts/checksyscalls.sh will catch it and
>>> inform us about it during our next kernel build.
>>>
>>> If you add it to x86_64 only, bad luck for anyone else ;-)
>>
>> Maybe we should change scripts/checksyscalls.sh to check the x86_64
>> list of syscalls, and not i386?
>>
>> It's been a long time since "all the world's an i386" --- these days,
>> it's "all the world's an x86_64".  :-)
> 
> Let the kbuild people (and their employers) fight over it...
> 

I'm missing context here, but as an x86 maintainer I have no intention
of allowing system calls that aren't x86-specific to be added to x86-64
only.

	-hpa

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Peter,

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:55 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 09:40 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:25:30PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>> maintainers would have no idea that a new syscall has been added.
>>>>
>>>> If i386 has the new syscall, scripts/checksyscalls.sh will catch it and
>>>> inform us about it during our next kernel build.
>>>>
>>>> If you add it to x86_64 only, bad luck for anyone else ;-)
>>>
>>> Maybe we should change scripts/checksyscalls.sh to check the x86_64
>>> list of syscalls, and not i386?
>>>
>>> It's been a long time since "all the world's an i386" --- these days,
>>> it's "all the world's an x86_64".  :-)
>>
>> Let the kbuild people (and their employers) fight over it...
>>
>
> I'm missing context here, but as an x86 maintainer I have no intention
> of allowing system calls that aren't x86-specific to be added to x86-64
> only.

commit 520c8b16505236fc82daa352e6c5e73cd9870cff
Author: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue Apr 1 17:08:42 2014 +0200

    vfs: add renameat2 syscall

It was added to arch/x86/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl only.

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

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:48:32PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >
> > I'm missing context here, but as an x86 maintainer I have no intention
> > of allowing system calls that aren't x86-specific to be added to x86-64
> > only.
> 
> commit 520c8b16505236fc82daa352e6c5e73cd9870cff
> Author: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
> Date:   Tue Apr 1 17:08:42 2014 +0200
> 
>     vfs: add renameat2 syscall
> 
> It was added to arch/x86/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl only.

To be fair, part of the problem is that we don't have good
documentation about best practices in what people should do if adding
new system calls.  (i.e., creating a man page and pulling in Michael
Kerrisk, adding tests, wiring up both x86_64 and i386, sending mail to
linux-arch, the scripts/checksyscalls.sh script, etc.)

I'll confess to being ignorant about the checksyscalls.sh script, and
while I had known about the existence of the linux-arch list, I had
forgotten about it, so if I had tried to add a new system call, it's
likely I would have missed at one or more of these steps.

       	       	    	      	     - Ted




> 
> 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

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[H. Peter Anvin]

It is quite frankly ridiculous how much work it takes to wire up a new system call.  It should be possible to do it across architectures without all this crap.

On April 9, 2014 11:23:24 AM PDT, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:48:32PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm missing context here, but as an x86 maintainer I have no
>intention
>> > of allowing system calls that aren't x86-specific to be added to
>x86-64
>> > only.
>> 
>> commit 520c8b16505236fc82daa352e6c5e73cd9870cff
>> Author: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
>> Date:   Tue Apr 1 17:08:42 2014 +0200
>> 
>>     vfs: add renameat2 syscall
>> 
>> It was added to arch/x86/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl only.
>
>To be fair, part of the problem is that we don't have good
>documentation about best practices in what people should do if adding
>new system calls.  (i.e., creating a man page and pulling in Michael
>Kerrisk, adding tests, wiring up both x86_64 and i386, sending mail to
>linux-arch, the scripts/checksyscalls.sh script, etc.)
>
>I'll confess to being ignorant about the checksyscalls.sh script, and
>while I had known about the existence of the linux-arch list, I had
>forgotten about it, so if I had tried to add a new system call, it's
>likely I would have missed at one or more of these steps.
>
>       	       	    	      	     - Ted
>
>
>
>
>> 
>> 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

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone.  Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2014, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

>       fs/mbcache.c: doucple the locking of local from global data

 This change causes breakage:

fs/built-in.o: In function `__mb_cache_entry_release':
mbcache.c:(.text+0x56b3c): undefined reference to `log2'
mbcache.c:(.text+0x56b3c): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 against `log2'
mbcache.c:(.text+0x56b74): undefined reference to `__fixunsdfsi'
mbcache.c:(.text+0x56b74): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 against `__fixunsdfsi'
mbcache.c:(.text+0x56be4): undefined reference to `log2'
mbcache.c:(.text+0x56be4): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 against `log2'
mbcache.c:(.text+0x56bf0): undefined reference to `__fixunsdfsi'
mbcache.c:(.text+0x56bf0): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 against `__fixunsdfsi'

and so on, and so on.  It uses __builtin_log2() that is a floating-point 
function, its corresponding <math.h> prototype is:

 -- Function: double log2 (double X)

(GCC builtins are of course implicitly prototyped).  Please note that 
floating-point calculations are not allowed in the kernel and relying on 
the compiler to optimise them away is risky to say the least.

 Can you please rewrite the fragment using __builtin_log2() so as to avoid 
the floating-point calculation, using ffs() or suchlike perhaps?

  Maciej

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke]

On 06/24/2014 04:03 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2014, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
>>       fs/mbcache.c: doucple the locking of local from global data
> 
>  This change causes breakage:
> 
> fs/built-in.o: In function `__mb_cache_entry_release':
> mbcache.c:(.text+0x56b3c): undefined reference to `log2'
> mbcache.c:(.text+0x56b3c): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 against `log2'
> mbcache.c:(.text+0x56b74): undefined reference to `__fixunsdfsi'
> mbcache.c:(.text+0x56b74): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 against `__fixunsdfsi'
> mbcache.c:(.text+0x56be4): undefined reference to `log2'
> mbcache.c:(.text+0x56be4): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 against `log2'
> mbcache.c:(.text+0x56bf0): undefined reference to `__fixunsdfsi'
> mbcache.c:(.text+0x56bf0): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 against `__fixunsdfsi'
> 
> and so on, and so on.  It uses __builtin_log2() that is a floating-point 
> function, its corresponding <math.h> prototype is:
> 
>  -- Function: double log2 (double X)
> 
> (GCC builtins are of course implicitly prototyped).  Please note that 
> floating-point calculations are not allowed in the kernel and relying on 
> the compiler to optimise them away is risky to say the least.
> 
>  Can you please rewrite the fragment using __builtin_log2() so as to avoid 
> the floating-point calculation, using ffs() or suchlike perhaps?
> 
>   Maciej
> 

Sorry and thanks for notifying me about the problem.

I've submitted the fix, using ilog2, and could be found at,

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/30/462

Please let me know if you have any comment.

Thanks,
Mak.

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke wrote:

> >  This change causes breakage:
> > 
> > fs/built-in.o: In function `__mb_cache_entry_release':
> > mbcache.c:(.text+0x56b3c): undefined reference to `log2'
> > mbcache.c:(.text+0x56b3c): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 against `log2'
> > mbcache.c:(.text+0x56b74): undefined reference to `__fixunsdfsi'
> > mbcache.c:(.text+0x56b74): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 against `__fixunsdfsi'
> > mbcache.c:(.text+0x56be4): undefined reference to `log2'
> > mbcache.c:(.text+0x56be4): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 against `log2'
> > mbcache.c:(.text+0x56bf0): undefined reference to `__fixunsdfsi'
> > mbcache.c:(.text+0x56bf0): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 against `__fixunsdfsi'
> > 
> > and so on, and so on.  It uses __builtin_log2() that is a floating-point 
> > function, its corresponding <math.h> prototype is:
> > 
> >  -- Function: double log2 (double X)
> > 
> > (GCC builtins are of course implicitly prototyped).  Please note that 
> > floating-point calculations are not allowed in the kernel and relying on 
> > the compiler to optimise them away is risky to say the least.
> > 
> >  Can you please rewrite the fragment using __builtin_log2() so as to avoid 
> > the floating-point calculation, using ffs() or suchlike perhaps?
> > 
> >   Maciej
> > 
> 
> Sorry and thanks for notifying me about the problem.
> 
> I've submitted the fix, using ilog2, and could be found at,
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/30/462
> 
> Please let me know if you have any comment.

 Thanks, that's even better, and the kernel builds and boots.  I saw no 
trace of your proposal going anywhere so I gave it my `Reviewed-by' tag in 
case that helps.

  Maciej

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Linus Torvalds]

Ted,
 going through pending issues, and wondering if I'm expected to pick
this up directly? The original came through your tree (commit
1f3e55fe02d1: "fs/mbcache.c: doucple the locking of local from global
data") and is in 3.15 too, so the patch should be marked for stable as
well.

It's hopefully limited to just very bad gcc versions for odd
architectures, so it's not exactly high-impact, but still..

      Linus

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke
<thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@hp.com> wrote:
>
> I've submitted the fix, using ilog2, and could be found at,
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/30/462

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:08:02AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ted,
>  going through pending issues, and wondering if I'm expected to pick
> this up directly? The original came through your tree (commit
> 1f3e55fe02d1: "fs/mbcache.c: doucple the locking of local from global
> data") and is in 3.15 too, so the patch should be marked for stable as
> well.
> 
> It's hopefully limited to just very bad gcc versions for odd
> architectures, so it's not exactly high-impact, but still..

Yes, I'll get something to you soon.  Sorry, I was on travel to NYC
earlier this week, so I'm a bit behind on the bug fix patches that I
needed to send to you now that the merge window is closed.

       	       	      	       	   	 	- Ted