From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (E23SMTP01.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e23smtp01.au.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29D4DDEC8 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:50:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23relay03.au.ibm.com (d23relay03.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.234]) by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m144pVtE007233 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:51:31 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m144oeSs3657748 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:50:40 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m144odsP022485 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:50:40 +1100 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:20:25 +0530 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix ext4 bitops Message-ID: <20080204045025.GA7494@skywalker> References: <20080201200208.GA28274@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org> <20080201122257.9524c2bb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080201210404.GA31271@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org> <20080203121238.GD18211@osiris.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens , Bastian Blank , Linux Kernel Development , Linux/PPC Development , Andrew Morton , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 01:39:02PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:04:04PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:22:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:02:08 +0100 > > > > Bastian Blank wrote: > > > > > > > > > Fix ext4 bitops. > > > > > > > > This is incomplete. Please tell us what was "fixed". > > > > > > > > If it was a build error then please quote the compile error output in the > > > > changelog, as well as the usual description of what the problem is, and how > > > > it was fixed. > > > > > > | fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'ext4_mb_generate_buddy': > > > | fs/ext4/mballoc.c:954: error: implicit declaration of function 'generic_find_next_le_bit' > > > > > > The s390 specific bitops uses parts of the generic implementation. > > > Include the correct header. > > > > That doesn't work: > > > > fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_release_inode_pa': > > mballoc.c:(.text+0x95a8a): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit' > > fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_init_cache': > > mballoc.c:(.text+0x967ea): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit' > > > > This still needs generic_find_next_le_bit which comes > > from lib/find_next_bit.c. That one doesn't get built on s390 since we > > don't set GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT. > > Currently we have the lengthly patch below queued. > > Similar issue on m68k. As Bastian also saw it on powerpc, I'm getting the > impression the ext4 people don't (compile) test on big endian machines? > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > I have sent this patches to linux-arch expecting a review from different arch people. It is true that the patches are tested only on powerpc, x86-64, x86. That's the primary reason of me sending the patches to linux-arch. http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=119503501127737&w=2 -aneesh