From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 13 (dm-thin-pool) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 21:14:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20180914011448.GA7110@redhat.com> References: <20180913152753.60866288@canb.auug.org.au> <258e14a1-0dbc-74ff-23a5-cd676fdf4579@infradead.org> <20180913185147.GA5647@redhat.com> <6572c1a5-3db0-af6d-30cc-f9f7c0dc604c@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6572c1a5-3db0-af6d-30cc-f9f7c0dc604c@infradead.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Randy Dunlap Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Joe Thornber , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 13 2018 at 8:45pm -0400, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 9/13/18 11:51 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13 2018 at 1:28pm -0400, > > Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > >> On 9/12/18 10:27 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> News: there will be no linux-next releases on Friday or Monday. > >>> > >>> Changes since 20180912: > >>> > >> > >> on i386: > >> > >> ERROR: "__udivdi3" [drivers/md/dm-thin-pool.ko] undefined! > > > > Well, as I pointed out in reply that nobody will see to the buildbots: > > > > There is something off in this report... I cannot reproduce. It is > > almost like the warning was generated when building an older version of > > this change, but then reported against the latest commit. > > > > I switched to sector_div() specifically because of the undefined > > __udivdi3 error. > > > > So I'm ignoring this given I cannot reproduce when using 'make ARCH=i386' > > > gcc --version > gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.8.5 > > # CONFIG_LBDAF is not set > > Perhaps you could try to reproduce it with the attached randconfig file. Ah, yeap.. sector_div() is only viable for use with sector_t. dm_block_t is typedef'd to uint64_t -- so that explains it. Need to use div_u64() instead. Thanks, Mike