Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-18 Thread Mark Fasheh 
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:40:07AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 03:43:54PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:33:34PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > Mark, could you please send a patch for the whole-struct option until
> > > the unaligned put is upstreamed?
> > > 
> > > -chris
> > 
> > Here you go. It's been lightly tested and needs review.
> > 
> At the very least it does fix the build error on the affected platforms.

Thanks for verifying that Guenter.
--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-18 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 03:43:54PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:33:34PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Mark, could you please send a patch for the whole-struct option until
> > the unaligned put is upstreamed?
> > 
> > -chris
> 
> Here you go. It's been lightly tested and needs review.
> 
At the very least it does fix the build error on the affected platforms.

Guenter

> Thanks,
>   --Mark
> 
> --
> Mark Fasheh
> 
> From: Mark Fasheh 
> 
> [PATCH] btrfs: change extent-same to copy entire argument struct
> 
> btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same() uses __put_user_unaligned() to copy some data
> back to it's argument struct. Unfortunately, not all architectures provide
> __put_user_unaligned(), so compiles break on them if btrfs is selected.
> 
> Instead, just copy the whole struct in / out at the start and end of
> operations, respectively.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh 
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 76 
> +---
>  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> index 1a5b946..25d6920 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> @@ -2696,9 +2696,9 @@ out_unlock:
>  static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file *file,
>void __user *argp)
>  {
> - struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args *args = argp;
> - struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args same;
> - struct btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info info;
> + struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args tmp;
> + struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args *same;
> + struct btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info *info;
>   struct inode *src = file->f_dentry->d_inode;
>   struct file *dst_file = NULL;
>   struct inode *dst;
> @@ -2706,6 +2706,7 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
> *file,
>   u64 len;
>   int i;
>   int ret;
> + unsigned long size;
>   u64 bs = BTRFS_I(src)->root->fs_info->sb->s_blocksize;
>   bool is_admin = capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN);
>  
> @@ -2716,15 +2717,30 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
> *file,
>   if (ret)
>   return ret;
>  
> - if (copy_from_user(,
> + if (copy_from_user(,
>  (struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args __user *)argp,
> -sizeof(same))) {
> +sizeof(tmp))) {
>   ret = -EFAULT;
>   goto out;
>   }
>  
> - off = same.logical_offset;
> - len = same.length;
> + size = sizeof(tmp) +
> + tmp.dest_count * sizeof(struct btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info);
> +
> + same = kmalloc(size, GFP_NOFS);
> + if (!same) {
> + ret = -EFAULT;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (copy_from_user(same,
> +(struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args __user *)argp, size)) {
> + ret = -EFAULT;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + off = same->logical_offset;
> + len = same->length;
>  
>   /*
>* Limit the total length we will dedupe for each operation.
> @@ -2752,27 +2768,28 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
> *file,
>   if (!S_ISREG(src->i_mode))
>   goto out;
>  
> - ret = 0;
> - for (i = 0; i < same.dest_count; i++) {
> - if (copy_from_user(, >info[i], sizeof(info))) {
> - ret = -EFAULT;
> - goto out;
> - }
> + /* pre-format output fields to sane values */
> + for (i = 0; i < same->dest_count; i++) {
> + same->info[i].bytes_deduped = 0ULL;
> + same->info[i].status = 0;
> + }
>  
> - info.bytes_deduped = 0;
> + ret = 0;
> + for (i = 0; i < same->dest_count; i++) {
> + info = >info[i];
>  
> - dst_file = fget(info.fd);
> + dst_file = fget(info->fd);
>   if (!dst_file) {
> - info.status = -EBADF;
> + info->status = -EBADF;
>   goto next;
>   }
>  
>   if (!(is_admin || (dst_file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))) {
> - info.status = -EINVAL;
> + info->status = -EINVAL;
>   goto next;
>   }
>  
> - info.status = -EXDEV;
> + info->status = -EXDEV;
>   if (file->f_path.mnt != dst_file->f_path.mnt)
>   goto next;
>  
> @@ -2781,32 +2798,29 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
> *file,
>   goto next;
>  
>   if (S_ISDIR(dst->i_mode)) {
> - info.status = -EISDIR;
> + info->status = -EISDIR;
>   goto next;
>   }
>  
>   if (!S_ISREG(dst->i_mode)) {
> - info.status = -EACCES;
> + info->status = -EACCES;
>   goto next;
>

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-18 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 03:43:54PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:33:34PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
  Mark, could you please send a patch for the whole-struct option until
  the unaligned put is upstreamed?
  
  -chris
 
 Here you go. It's been lightly tested and needs review.
 
At the very least it does fix the build error on the affected platforms.

Guenter

 Thanks,
   --Mark
 
 --
 Mark Fasheh
 
 From: Mark Fasheh mfas...@suse.de
 
 [PATCH] btrfs: change extent-same to copy entire argument struct
 
 btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same() uses __put_user_unaligned() to copy some data
 back to it's argument struct. Unfortunately, not all architectures provide
 __put_user_unaligned(), so compiles break on them if btrfs is selected.
 
 Instead, just copy the whole struct in / out at the start and end of
 operations, respectively.
 
 Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh mfas...@suse.de
 ---
  fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 76 
 +---
  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
 
 diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
 index 1a5b946..25d6920 100644
 --- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
 +++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
 @@ -2696,9 +2696,9 @@ out_unlock:
  static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file *file,
void __user *argp)
  {
 - struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args *args = argp;
 - struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args same;
 - struct btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info info;
 + struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args tmp;
 + struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args *same;
 + struct btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info *info;
   struct inode *src = file-f_dentry-d_inode;
   struct file *dst_file = NULL;
   struct inode *dst;
 @@ -2706,6 +2706,7 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
 *file,
   u64 len;
   int i;
   int ret;
 + unsigned long size;
   u64 bs = BTRFS_I(src)-root-fs_info-sb-s_blocksize;
   bool is_admin = capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN);
  
 @@ -2716,15 +2717,30 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
 *file,
   if (ret)
   return ret;
  
 - if (copy_from_user(same,
 + if (copy_from_user(tmp,
  (struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args __user *)argp,
 -sizeof(same))) {
 +sizeof(tmp))) {
   ret = -EFAULT;
   goto out;
   }
  
 - off = same.logical_offset;
 - len = same.length;
 + size = sizeof(tmp) +
 + tmp.dest_count * sizeof(struct btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info);
 +
 + same = kmalloc(size, GFP_NOFS);
 + if (!same) {
 + ret = -EFAULT;
 + goto out;
 + }
 +
 + if (copy_from_user(same,
 +(struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args __user *)argp, size)) {
 + ret = -EFAULT;
 + goto out;
 + }
 +
 + off = same-logical_offset;
 + len = same-length;
  
   /*
* Limit the total length we will dedupe for each operation.
 @@ -2752,27 +2768,28 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
 *file,
   if (!S_ISREG(src-i_mode))
   goto out;
  
 - ret = 0;
 - for (i = 0; i  same.dest_count; i++) {
 - if (copy_from_user(info, args-info[i], sizeof(info))) {
 - ret = -EFAULT;
 - goto out;
 - }
 + /* pre-format output fields to sane values */
 + for (i = 0; i  same-dest_count; i++) {
 + same-info[i].bytes_deduped = 0ULL;
 + same-info[i].status = 0;
 + }
  
 - info.bytes_deduped = 0;
 + ret = 0;
 + for (i = 0; i  same-dest_count; i++) {
 + info = same-info[i];
  
 - dst_file = fget(info.fd);
 + dst_file = fget(info-fd);
   if (!dst_file) {
 - info.status = -EBADF;
 + info-status = -EBADF;
   goto next;
   }
  
   if (!(is_admin || (dst_file-f_mode  FMODE_WRITE))) {
 - info.status = -EINVAL;
 + info-status = -EINVAL;
   goto next;
   }
  
 - info.status = -EXDEV;
 + info-status = -EXDEV;
   if (file-f_path.mnt != dst_file-f_path.mnt)
   goto next;
  
 @@ -2781,32 +2798,29 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
 *file,
   goto next;
  
   if (S_ISDIR(dst-i_mode)) {
 - info.status = -EISDIR;
 + info-status = -EISDIR;
   goto next;
   }
  
   if (!S_ISREG(dst-i_mode)) {
 - info.status = -EACCES;
 + info-status = -EACCES;
   goto next;
   }
  
 - info.status = btrfs_extent_same(src, off, len, dst,
 -

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-18 Thread Mark Fasheh 
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:40:07AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
 On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 03:43:54PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
  On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:33:34PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
   Mark, could you please send a patch for the whole-struct option until
   the unaligned put is upstreamed?
   
   -chris
  
  Here you go. It's been lightly tested and needs review.
  
 At the very least it does fix the build error on the affected platforms.

Thanks for verifying that Guenter.
--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-17 Thread Mark Fasheh 
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:33:34PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Mark, could you please send a patch for the whole-struct option until
> the unaligned put is upstreamed?
> 
> -chris

Here you go. It's been lightly tested and needs review.

Thanks,
--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh

From: Mark Fasheh 

[PATCH] btrfs: change extent-same to copy entire argument struct

btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same() uses __put_user_unaligned() to copy some data
back to it's argument struct. Unfortunately, not all architectures provide
__put_user_unaligned(), so compiles break on them if btrfs is selected.

Instead, just copy the whole struct in / out at the start and end of
operations, respectively.

Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh 
---
 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 76 +---
 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
index 1a5b946..25d6920 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
@@ -2696,9 +2696,9 @@ out_unlock:
 static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file *file,
 void __user *argp)
 {
-   struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args *args = argp;
-   struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args same;
-   struct btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info info;
+   struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args tmp;
+   struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args *same;
+   struct btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info *info;
struct inode *src = file->f_dentry->d_inode;
struct file *dst_file = NULL;
struct inode *dst;
@@ -2706,6 +2706,7 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
*file,
u64 len;
int i;
int ret;
+   unsigned long size;
u64 bs = BTRFS_I(src)->root->fs_info->sb->s_blocksize;
bool is_admin = capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN);
 
@@ -2716,15 +2717,30 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
*file,
if (ret)
return ret;
 
-   if (copy_from_user(,
+   if (copy_from_user(,
   (struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args __user *)argp,
-  sizeof(same))) {
+  sizeof(tmp))) {
ret = -EFAULT;
goto out;
}
 
-   off = same.logical_offset;
-   len = same.length;
+   size = sizeof(tmp) +
+   tmp.dest_count * sizeof(struct btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info);
+
+   same = kmalloc(size, GFP_NOFS);
+   if (!same) {
+   ret = -EFAULT;
+   goto out;
+   }
+
+   if (copy_from_user(same,
+  (struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args __user *)argp, size)) {
+   ret = -EFAULT;
+   goto out;
+   }
+
+   off = same->logical_offset;
+   len = same->length;
 
/*
 * Limit the total length we will dedupe for each operation.
@@ -2752,27 +2768,28 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
*file,
if (!S_ISREG(src->i_mode))
goto out;
 
-   ret = 0;
-   for (i = 0; i < same.dest_count; i++) {
-   if (copy_from_user(, >info[i], sizeof(info))) {
-   ret = -EFAULT;
-   goto out;
-   }
+   /* pre-format output fields to sane values */
+   for (i = 0; i < same->dest_count; i++) {
+   same->info[i].bytes_deduped = 0ULL;
+   same->info[i].status = 0;
+   }
 
-   info.bytes_deduped = 0;
+   ret = 0;
+   for (i = 0; i < same->dest_count; i++) {
+   info = >info[i];
 
-   dst_file = fget(info.fd);
+   dst_file = fget(info->fd);
if (!dst_file) {
-   info.status = -EBADF;
+   info->status = -EBADF;
goto next;
}
 
if (!(is_admin || (dst_file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))) {
-   info.status = -EINVAL;
+   info->status = -EINVAL;
goto next;
}
 
-   info.status = -EXDEV;
+   info->status = -EXDEV;
if (file->f_path.mnt != dst_file->f_path.mnt)
goto next;
 
@@ -2781,32 +2798,29 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
*file,
goto next;
 
if (S_ISDIR(dst->i_mode)) {
-   info.status = -EISDIR;
+   info->status = -EISDIR;
goto next;
}
 
if (!S_ISREG(dst->i_mode)) {
-   info.status = -EACCES;
+   info->status = -EACCES;
goto next;
}
 
-   info.status = btrfs_extent_same(src, off, len, dst,
-   info.logical_offset);
-   if (info.status == 0)
-   info.bytes_deduped += len;
+

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-17 Thread Mark Fasheh 
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:33:34PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
 Mark, could you please send a patch for the whole-struct option until
 the unaligned put is upstreamed?
 
 -chris

Here you go. It's been lightly tested and needs review.

Thanks,
--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh

From: Mark Fasheh mfas...@suse.de

[PATCH] btrfs: change extent-same to copy entire argument struct

btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same() uses __put_user_unaligned() to copy some data
back to it's argument struct. Unfortunately, not all architectures provide
__put_user_unaligned(), so compiles break on them if btrfs is selected.

Instead, just copy the whole struct in / out at the start and end of
operations, respectively.

Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh mfas...@suse.de
---
 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 76 +---
 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
index 1a5b946..25d6920 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
@@ -2696,9 +2696,9 @@ out_unlock:
 static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file *file,
 void __user *argp)
 {
-   struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args *args = argp;
-   struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args same;
-   struct btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info info;
+   struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args tmp;
+   struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args *same;
+   struct btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info *info;
struct inode *src = file-f_dentry-d_inode;
struct file *dst_file = NULL;
struct inode *dst;
@@ -2706,6 +2706,7 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
*file,
u64 len;
int i;
int ret;
+   unsigned long size;
u64 bs = BTRFS_I(src)-root-fs_info-sb-s_blocksize;
bool is_admin = capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN);
 
@@ -2716,15 +2717,30 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
*file,
if (ret)
return ret;
 
-   if (copy_from_user(same,
+   if (copy_from_user(tmp,
   (struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args __user *)argp,
-  sizeof(same))) {
+  sizeof(tmp))) {
ret = -EFAULT;
goto out;
}
 
-   off = same.logical_offset;
-   len = same.length;
+   size = sizeof(tmp) +
+   tmp.dest_count * sizeof(struct btrfs_ioctl_same_extent_info);
+
+   same = kmalloc(size, GFP_NOFS);
+   if (!same) {
+   ret = -EFAULT;
+   goto out;
+   }
+
+   if (copy_from_user(same,
+  (struct btrfs_ioctl_same_args __user *)argp, size)) {
+   ret = -EFAULT;
+   goto out;
+   }
+
+   off = same-logical_offset;
+   len = same-length;
 
/*
 * Limit the total length we will dedupe for each operation.
@@ -2752,27 +2768,28 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
*file,
if (!S_ISREG(src-i_mode))
goto out;
 
-   ret = 0;
-   for (i = 0; i  same.dest_count; i++) {
-   if (copy_from_user(info, args-info[i], sizeof(info))) {
-   ret = -EFAULT;
-   goto out;
-   }
+   /* pre-format output fields to sane values */
+   for (i = 0; i  same-dest_count; i++) {
+   same-info[i].bytes_deduped = 0ULL;
+   same-info[i].status = 0;
+   }
 
-   info.bytes_deduped = 0;
+   ret = 0;
+   for (i = 0; i  same-dest_count; i++) {
+   info = same-info[i];
 
-   dst_file = fget(info.fd);
+   dst_file = fget(info-fd);
if (!dst_file) {
-   info.status = -EBADF;
+   info-status = -EBADF;
goto next;
}
 
if (!(is_admin || (dst_file-f_mode  FMODE_WRITE))) {
-   info.status = -EINVAL;
+   info-status = -EINVAL;
goto next;
}
 
-   info.status = -EXDEV;
+   info-status = -EXDEV;
if (file-f_path.mnt != dst_file-f_path.mnt)
goto next;
 
@@ -2781,32 +2798,29 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same(struct file 
*file,
goto next;
 
if (S_ISDIR(dst-i_mode)) {
-   info.status = -EISDIR;
+   info-status = -EISDIR;
goto next;
}
 
if (!S_ISREG(dst-i_mode)) {
-   info.status = -EACCES;
+   info-status = -EACCES;
goto next;
}
 
-   info.status = btrfs_extent_same(src, off, len, dst,
-   info.logical_offset);
-   if (info.status == 0)
-   info.bytes_deduped += len;
+

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Chris Mason 
Quoting Mark Fasheh (2013-09-13 13:58:01)
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Quoting Guenter Roeck (2013-09-13 12:35:35)
> > I'm happy to fix this with a bigger put of the info struct, just
> > let me know the preferred arch-happy solution.
> 
> In fact old versions of the patch were putting the whole struct but during
> review I was asked to change it. This should be very straight forward to fix
> so long as we all stay calm ;)
> --Mark

Mark, could you please send a patch for the whole-struct option until
the unaligned put is upstreamed?

-chris

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Mark Fasheh 
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Quoting Guenter Roeck (2013-09-13 12:35:35)
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:52:43PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck  wrote:
> > > > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same':
> > > > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > > > '__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> > > > make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1
> > > > make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
> > > >
> > > > Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and
> > > > xtensa:allmodconfig.
> > > 
> > > Known issue, cfr. my early warning 10 days ago:
> > > 
> > > "Btrfs is the first user of __put_user_unaligned() outside the compat 
> > > code,
> > > hence now all 32-bit architectures should make sure to implement this, 
> > > too."
> > > 
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch=137820065929216=2
> > > 
> > > and today's thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/12/814
> > > 
> > 
> > It doesn't seem right that a patch breaks the build for several platforms, 
> > and
> > the problem is then blamed on the platform code instead of the code that is
> > introducing the problem.
> > 
> > Maybe we should add BROKEN to the btrfs dependencies for the affected 
> > platforms.
> > After all, it _is_ broken.
> 
> I'm happy to fix this with a bigger put of the info struct, just
> let me know the preferred arch-happy solution.

In fact old versions of the patch were putting the whole struct but during
review I was asked to change it. This should be very straight forward to fix
so long as we all stay calm ;)
--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Chris Mason 
Quoting Guenter Roeck (2013-09-13 12:35:35)
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:52:43PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck  wrote:
> > > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same':
> > > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > > '__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> > > make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1
> > > make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
> > >
> > > Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and
> > > xtensa:allmodconfig.
> > 
> > Known issue, cfr. my early warning 10 days ago:
> > 
> > "Btrfs is the first user of __put_user_unaligned() outside the compat code,
> > hence now all 32-bit architectures should make sure to implement this, too."
> > 
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch=137820065929216=2
> > 
> > and today's thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/12/814
> > 
> 
> It doesn't seem right that a patch breaks the build for several platforms, and
> the problem is then blamed on the platform code instead of the code that is
> introducing the problem.
> 
> Maybe we should add BROKEN to the btrfs dependencies for the affected 
> platforms.
> After all, it _is_ broken.

I'm happy to fix this with a bigger put of the info struct, just
let me know the preferred arch-happy solution.

-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Quoting Guenter Roeck (2013-09-13 12:35:35)
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:52:43PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck  wrote:
> > > > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same':
> > > > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > > > '__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> > > > make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1
> > > > make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
> > > >
> > > > Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and
> > > > xtensa:allmodconfig.
> > > 
> > > Known issue, cfr. my early warning 10 days ago:
> > > 
> > > "Btrfs is the first user of __put_user_unaligned() outside the compat 
> > > code,
> > > hence now all 32-bit architectures should make sure to implement this, 
> > > too."
> > > 
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch=137820065929216=2
> > > 
> > > and today's thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/12/814
> > > 
> > 
> > It doesn't seem right that a patch breaks the build for several platforms, 
> > and
> > the problem is then blamed on the platform code instead of the code that is
> > introducing the problem.
> > 
> > Maybe we should add BROKEN to the btrfs dependencies for the affected 
> > platforms.
> > After all, it _is_ broken.
> 
> I'm happy to fix this with a bigger put of the info struct, just
> let me know the preferred arch-happy solution.
> 
Me not either. The only requirement I would have is that it should not break
a build. Of course, it would be even better if it would actually work ;-).

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:52:43PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck  wrote:
> > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same':
> > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function 
> > '__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> > make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1
> > make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
> >
> > Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and
> > xtensa:allmodconfig.
> 
> Known issue, cfr. my early warning 10 days ago:
> 
> "Btrfs is the first user of __put_user_unaligned() outside the compat code,
> hence now all 32-bit architectures should make sure to implement this, too."
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch=137820065929216=2
> 
> and today's thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/12/814
> 

It doesn't seem right that a patch breaks the build for several platforms, and
the problem is then blamed on the platform code instead of the code that is
introducing the problem.

Maybe we should add BROKEN to the btrfs dependencies for the affected platforms.
After all, it _is_ broken.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven 
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck  wrote:
> fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same':
> fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function 
> '__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1
> make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
>
> Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and
> xtensa:allmodconfig.

Known issue, cfr. my early warning 10 days ago:

"Btrfs is the first user of __put_user_unaligned() outside the compat code,
hence now all 32-bit architectures should make sure to implement this, too."

http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch=137820065929216=2

and today's thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/12/814

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org

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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Guenter Roeck 
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same':
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function 
'__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs

Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and
xtensa:allmodconfig.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Guenter Roeck 
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same':
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function 
'__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs

Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and
xtensa:allmodconfig.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven 
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same':
 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function 
 '__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
 cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
 make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1
 make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs

 Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and
 xtensa:allmodconfig.

Known issue, cfr. my early warning 10 days ago:

Btrfs is the first user of __put_user_unaligned() outside the compat code,
hence now all 32-bit architectures should make sure to implement this, too.

http://marc.info/?l=linux-archm=137820065929216w=2

and today's thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/12/814

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org

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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:52:43PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
  fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same':
  fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function 
  '__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
  make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1
  make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
 
  Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and
  xtensa:allmodconfig.
 
 Known issue, cfr. my early warning 10 days ago:
 
 Btrfs is the first user of __put_user_unaligned() outside the compat code,
 hence now all 32-bit architectures should make sure to implement this, too.
 
 http://marc.info/?l=linux-archm=137820065929216w=2
 
 and today's thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/12/814
 

It doesn't seem right that a patch breaks the build for several platforms, and
the problem is then blamed on the platform code instead of the code that is
introducing the problem.

Maybe we should add BROKEN to the btrfs dependencies for the affected platforms.
After all, it _is_ broken.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Chris Mason 
Quoting Guenter Roeck (2013-09-13 12:35:35)
 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:52:43PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
  On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
   fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same':
   fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function 
   '__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
   cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
   make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1
   make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
  
   Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and
   xtensa:allmodconfig.
  
  Known issue, cfr. my early warning 10 days ago:
  
  Btrfs is the first user of __put_user_unaligned() outside the compat code,
  hence now all 32-bit architectures should make sure to implement this, too.
  
  http://marc.info/?l=linux-archm=137820065929216w=2
  
  and today's thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/12/814
  
 
 It doesn't seem right that a patch breaks the build for several platforms, and
 the problem is then blamed on the platform code instead of the code that is
 introducing the problem.
 
 Maybe we should add BROKEN to the btrfs dependencies for the affected 
 platforms.
 After all, it _is_ broken.

I'm happy to fix this with a bigger put of the info struct, just
let me know the preferred arch-happy solution.

-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
 Quoting Guenter Roeck (2013-09-13 12:35:35)
  On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:52:43PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
   On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same':
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function 
'__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
   
Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and
xtensa:allmodconfig.
   
   Known issue, cfr. my early warning 10 days ago:
   
   Btrfs is the first user of __put_user_unaligned() outside the compat 
   code,
   hence now all 32-bit architectures should make sure to implement this, 
   too.
   
   http://marc.info/?l=linux-archm=137820065929216w=2
   
   and today's thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/12/814
   
  
  It doesn't seem right that a patch breaks the build for several platforms, 
  and
  the problem is then blamed on the platform code instead of the code that is
  introducing the problem.
  
  Maybe we should add BROKEN to the btrfs dependencies for the affected 
  platforms.
  After all, it _is_ broken.
 
 I'm happy to fix this with a bigger put of the info struct, just
 let me know the preferred arch-happy solution.
 
Me not either. The only requirement I would have is that it should not break
a build. Of course, it would be even better if it would actually work ;-).

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Mark Fasheh 
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
 Quoting Guenter Roeck (2013-09-13 12:35:35)
  On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:52:43PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
   On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same':
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit declaration of function 
'__put_user_unaligned' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/ioctl.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
   
Seen with alpha:allmodconfig, arm:allmodconfig, m68k:allmodconfig, and
xtensa:allmodconfig.
   
   Known issue, cfr. my early warning 10 days ago:
   
   Btrfs is the first user of __put_user_unaligned() outside the compat 
   code,
   hence now all 32-bit architectures should make sure to implement this, 
   too.
   
   http://marc.info/?l=linux-archm=137820065929216w=2
   
   and today's thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/12/814
   
  
  It doesn't seem right that a patch breaks the build for several platforms, 
  and
  the problem is then blamed on the platform code instead of the code that is
  introducing the problem.
  
  Maybe we should add BROKEN to the btrfs dependencies for the affected 
  platforms.
  After all, it _is_ broken.
 
 I'm happy to fix this with a bigger put of the info struct, just
 let me know the preferred arch-happy solution.

In fact old versions of the patch were putting the whole struct but during
review I was asked to change it. This should be very straight forward to fix
so long as we all stay calm ;)
--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Chris Mason 
Quoting Mark Fasheh (2013-09-13 13:58:01)
 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
  Quoting Guenter Roeck (2013-09-13 12:35:35)
  I'm happy to fix this with a bigger put of the info struct, just
  let me know the preferred arch-happy solution.
 
 In fact old versions of the patch were putting the whole struct but during
 review I was asked to change it. This should be very straight forward to fix
 so long as we all stay calm ;)
 --Mark

Mark, could you please send a patch for the whole-struct option until
the unaligned put is upstreamed?

-chris

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/