From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (E23SMTP04.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e23smtp04.au.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA946DDEE1 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:29:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from sd0109e.au.ibm.com (d23rh905.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.225]) by e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m149TP4F004669 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:29:25 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by sd0109e.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m149XLSM242202 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:33:21 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m149ThTK020335 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:29:43 +1100 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:59:34 +0530 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Heiko Carstens Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix ext4 bitops Message-ID: <20080204092934.GE7494@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> <20080204045025.GA7494@skywalker> <20080204092436.GB7530@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20080204092436.GB7530@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Bastian Blank , Linux Kernel Development , Linux/PPC Development , Geert Uytterhoeven , 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 Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 10:24:36AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > > > | 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. > > Is there anything special I need to do so the ext4 code actually uses > ext2_find_next_bit() ? Haven't looked at the ext4 code, but I'd like to > test if the s390 implementation is ok. With the latest linus kernel in git you can test it by mounting ext4 mount -t ext4dev -aneesh