On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? > > 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
Sometimes it's difficult to see what can go wrong due to a single patch that just adds a #define. Sorry, I missed the lack of prototype for generic_find_next_le_bit() and that we don't set GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT, just like s390. And yes, usually I rely on the -mm autocompiler to catch things like this, but this time it didn't work out... Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/