From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m555beIg020214 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:37:40 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 4846111C29AA for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id C1bNEs8roKcbkaRS for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48477BD6.2020909@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:38:30 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix dir2 shortform structures on ARM old ABI References: <47DB4181.7040603@sandeen.net> <480E89B5.8070006@sandeen.net> <481B7FD1.3030107@sandeen.net> <20080505070847.GH155679365@sgi.com> <481FDCD1.2010905@sgi.com> <4820609C.9090306@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <4820609C.9090306@sandeen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Timothy Shimmin Cc: xfs-oss Eric Sandeen wrote: > Timothy Shimmin wrote: >> David Chinner wrote: >>> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 03:55:45PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>>> Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>>>> This should fix the longstanding issues with xfs and old ABI >>>>>> arm boxes, which lead to various asserts and xfs shutdowns, >>>>>> and for which an (incorrect) patch has been floating around >>>>>> for years. (Said patch made ARM internally consistent, but >>>>>> altered the normal xfs on-disk format such that it looked >>>>>> corrupted on other architectures): >>>>>> http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20040311.002034.5ecf21a2.html >>>>> ping again... >>>> ping #3... >>> Guys, this is SIMPLE, SAFE, and it fixes a CORRUPTION BUG. is it EVER going to get checked in? -Eric >>> Looks like if I don't pick it up then nobody is going to answer. >>> I'll run it through my ia64 and x86_64 test boxes and if it's ok >>> then I'll commit it. >>> >> As it only defines __arch_pack for __arm__, >> I literally can't see how on earth it won't pass for ia64 and x86-64, >> though I realise (I guess) we need to test to be sure :) >> >> So Eric tested this on qemu-arm with success. >> And there was a little debate over whether ARM-EABI would work >> currently in XFS, >> with Luca Olivetti saying in one kernel he has success and in another >> he doesn't. And Andre Draszik saying that for ARM-EABI it wouldn't >> work. > > The patch should only affect behavior on *old* abi: > > +#if defined(__arm__) && !defined(__ARM_EABI__) > > it is the only one with the unique alignment that matters here. > > There *is* still another issue on some arm chips related to processor > cache flushing; I didn't see the problem in qemu because it the emulator > does not have this behavior. > > But, it's a separate issue from the structure alignment this patch > addresses. > > One thing at a time. :) > > Thanks, > > -Eric > >> That aside, Eric has tried out on ARM without EABI (old ABI) and has had success, >> so it is at least useful for this case. >> I don't see us doing any arm testing for this ourselves :) >> >> --Tim >> > >