Re: [PATCH V7 06/17] xfs: Promote xfs_extnum_t and xfs_aextnum_t to 64 and 32-bits respectively

Dave Chinner
2022-03-07T04:55:28Z

On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 06:13:21PM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
> On 04 Mar 2022 at 06:59, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 04:09:27PM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
> >> A future commit will introduce a 64-bit on-disk data extent counter and a
> >> 32-bit on-disk attr extent counter. This commit promotes xfs_extnum_t and
> >> xfs_aextnum_t to 64 and 32-bits in order to correctly handle in-core versions
> >> of these quantities.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> >
> > What was reported by the test robot? This change isn't a bug that
> > needed fixing, it's a core part of the patchset...
> >
>
> Kernel test robot had complained about the following,
>
> ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: __udivdi3
> >>> referenced by xfs_bmap.c
> >>> xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.o:(xfs_bmap_compute_maxlevels) in archive fs/built-in.a
>
> I had solved the linker error by replacing the division operation with the
> following statement,
>
> maxblocks = howmany_64(maxleafents, minleafrecs);
>
> Sorry, I will include this description in the commit message.

Oh, I wouldn't even bother with a Reported-by tag then. It's just
like a reviewer pointing out that there was an issue with the patch
- you don't add "reported-by" for every little thing that someone
points out that you fix, right? You might mention who noticed it
in the changelog for the patch, but this sort of information does
not belong in the commit message for a new feature.

IOWs, reported-by is really only useful for referencing the bug
report for a regression or bug that was found in a released kernel
- it's not useful or meaningful for patches that are being developed
and have not yet been merged...

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com