В Fri, 04 Apr 2014 20:24:58 +0200
Dinar Valeev <dval...@suse.de> пишет:
>
> Right, my mistake. I recall a message message with 64bit LE patches. But
> seems that came from somewhere else.
>
> Long story short. With 32Bit BE stage one I had several issues like
> accessing btrfs and booting from media. I gave up on my hack, and now
> use proposed patches (64Bit LE).
>
Well, then this is the real bug that has to be fixed. btrfs driver is
supposed to be endian-clean.
Did you try to disable SUSE btrfs patch to verify? There is at least one
suspicious place
+ tree = grub_le_to_cpu64(data->sblock.root_tree);
+ err = get_fs_root(data, tree, grub_cpu_to_le64(GRUB_BTRFS_FS_TREE_OBJECTID),
+ 0, &fs_root);
get_fs_root expects "tree" in on-disk format, not in CPU format.
+get_fs_root(struct grub_btrfs_data *data, grub_uint64_t tree,
+ grub_uint64_t objectid, grub_uint64_t offset,
+ grub_uint64_t *fs_root)
...
+ err = lower_bound(data, &key_in, &key_out, tree,
+ &elemaddr, &elemsize, &desc, 0);
and lower_bound converts fourth argument again
lower_bound (struct grub_btrfs_data *data,
const struct grub_btrfs_key *key_in,
struct grub_btrfs_key *key_out,
grub_uint64_t root
...
grub_disk_addr_t addr = grub_le_to_cpu64 (root);
> I'll submit it to Base:System.
>
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
