Re: reiser4 experimental patch
Am Freitag, 10. November 2006 00:39 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: thanks for answer! :) so, the patch compiles fine (one warning in super_ops.c), the FS boot correctly, but if i execute for exemple startx, kernel panic! i compile reiser4 built in with debug, i will send the error (kernel panic) to the list tomorow because i'm now in my house, and the experinet is on my work computer :) I didn't look closer on your patch, but you shouldn't get a warning in super_ops.c. Which compiler do you use? Can you try the patch, I've made? http://www.stud.tu-ilmenau.de/~johi-in/patch-reiser4-2.6.18.bz2
Re: reiser4 experimental patch
Em Sexta 10 Novembro 2006 09:44, Johannes Hirte escreveu: Am Freitag, 10. November 2006 00:39 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: thanks for answer! :) so, the patch compiles fine (one warning in super_ops.c), the FS boot correctly, but if i execute for exemple startx, kernel panic! i compile reiser4 built in with debug, i will send the error (kernel panic) to the list tomorow because i'm now in my house, and the experinet is on my work computer :) I didn't look closer on your patch, but you shouldn't get a warning in super_ops.c. Which compiler do you use? Can you try the patch, I've made? http://www.stud.tu-ilmenau.de/~johi-in/patch-reiser4-2.6.18.bz2 Hello, i use gcc 3.4.6 on slamd64 (www.slamd64.com), x86_64. i will try your patch :) i'm on-line now on irc.oftc.net nick smyows #reiser4 and my nootebook is on [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... error from boot today.. reiser4 panicked cowaedly: reiser4[mount(1909)]: check_blocks_bitmap (fs/reiser4/plugin/space/bitmap.c:1268)[zam-623]: assertion failed: reiser4_find_next_zero_bit(bnode_working_data(bnode), end_offset, start_offset) = end_offset Kernel panic - not syncing: reiser4[mount(1909)]: check_blocks_bitmap (fs/reiser4/plugin/space/bitmap.c:1268)[zam-623]: assertion failed: reiser4_find_next_zero_bit(bnode_working_data(bnode), end_offset, start_offset) = end_offset ... yesterday give some error but in /fs/reiser4/context.c line 79 i reboot the computer and works now. i'll compare the super_ops.c :) thaks
Re: reiser4 experimental patch
the diference between my an Johannes Hirte's patch is:
/fs/reiser4/plugins/item/item.h
ssize_t (*write) (struct file *, const char __user *, size_t, loff_t
*pos);
---
int (*write) (struct file *, const char __user *, size_t, loff_t
*pos);
*
/fs/reiser4/super_ops.c
290c290
static int reiser4_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *statfs)
---
static int reiser4_statfs(struct super_block *super, struct kstatfs *statfs)
292,293d291
struct super_block *super = dentry-d_sb;
571a570,571
// alterado
575,576c575
void *data,
struct vfsmount *mnt)
---
void *data, struct vfsmount *mnt)
582c581,582
static struct file_system_type reiser4_fs_type = {
---
// alterado
struct file_system_type reiser4_fs_type = {
*
i change my super_ops.c but why you alter te int to ssize_t on item.h?
()'s
Em Sexta 10 Novembro 2006 09:57, Guilherme Covolo escreveu:
Em Sexta 10 Novembro 2006 09:44, Johannes Hirte escreveu:
Am Freitag, 10. November 2006 00:39 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
thanks for answer! :)
so, the patch compiles fine (one warning in super_ops.c), the FS boot
correctly, but if i execute for exemple startx, kernel panic! i compile
reiser4 built in with debug, i will send the error (kernel panic) to
the list tomorow because i'm now in my house, and the experinet is on
my work computer :)
I didn't look closer on your patch, but you shouldn't get a warning in
super_ops.c. Which compiler do you use?
Can you try the patch, I've made?
http://www.stud.tu-ilmenau.de/~johi-in/patch-reiser4-2.6.18.bz2
Hello,
i use gcc 3.4.6 on slamd64 (www.slamd64.com), x86_64.
i will try your patch :)
i'm on-line now on irc.oftc.net nick smyows #reiser4 and my nootebook is on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ...
error from boot today..
reiser4 panicked cowaedly: reiser4[mount(1909)]: check_blocks_bitmap
(fs/reiser4/plugin/space/bitmap.c:1268)[zam-623]: assertion failed:
reiser4_find_next_zero_bit(bnode_working_data(bnode), end_offset,
start_offset) = end_offset
Kernel panic - not syncing: reiser4[mount(1909)]: check_blocks_bitmap
(fs/reiser4/plugin/space/bitmap.c:1268)[zam-623]: assertion failed:
reiser4_find_next_zero_bit(bnode_working_data(bnode), end_offset,
start_offset) = end_offset
...
yesterday give some error but in /fs/reiser4/context.c line 79
i reboot the computer and works now.
i'll compare the super_ops.c :)
thaks
Re: reiser4 experimental patch
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:59:30 -0200, Guilherme Covolo said: the diference between my an Johannes Hirte's patch is: * /fs/reiser4/super_ops.c 290c290 static int reiser4_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *statfs) --- static int reiser4_statfs(struct super_block *super, struct kstatfs *statfs diff -c or diff -u please. That way, if some unrelated thing moves the lines up or down 1 or 2, it still applies. Also, it's easier to look at a 'diff -u' and understand what's going on, because you get to see 3-4 lines either side of the changed lines. i change my super_ops.c but why you alter te int to ssize_t on item.h? ssize_t isn't an int on some architectures, it's a 'long'. As a result if you reference a 32 bit value where you should use 64, you'll certainly end up with something unexpected (probably an oops). pgp89gE9Ad8ly.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: reiser4 experimental patch
i change my patch, now is equals of the Johannes Hirte's patch .. only difference is my patch have the comment /* change */ in the source. run on x86_64 fine! :) my patch and the Johannes Hirte's patch is linked in my site, www.youare.not.br thanks to all! Em Sexta 10 Novembro 2006 12:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu: On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:59:30 -0200, Guilherme Covolo said: the diference between my an Johannes Hirte's patch is: * /fs/reiser4/super_ops.c 290c290 static int reiser4_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *statfs) --- static int reiser4_statfs(struct super_block *super, struct kstatfs *statfs diff -c or diff -u please. That way, if some unrelated thing moves the lines up or down 1 or 2, it still applies. Also, it's easier to look at a 'diff -u' and understand what's going on, because you get to see 3-4 lines either side of the changed lines. i change my super_ops.c but why you alter te int to ssize_t on item.h? ssize_t isn't an int on some architectures, it's a 'long'. As a result if you reference a 32 bit value where you should use 64, you'll certainly end up with something unexpected (probably an oops).
Re: reiser4 experimental patch
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:23:20 -0200, Guilherme Covolo said: hello guys, my experimental patch need modfications on fs/reiser4/context.c i need help ;) You'll have to give us more info than that. What happened? Patch reject? It didn't compile? It didn't modprobe? The resulting kernel didn't boot? The resulting kernel oopsed? Other? pgpL4a0CRF33Z.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: reiser4 experimental patch
thanks for answer! :) so, the patch compiles fine (one warning in super_ops.c), the FS boot correctly, but if i execute for exemple startx, kernel panic! i compile reiser4 built in with debug, i will send the error (kernel panic) to the list tomorow because i'm now in my house, and the experinet is on my work computer :) i don't have much knowledge in C, kernel programer (i'm noob!), and so sorry my poor english :) but if the comunity works together, i beliave it is posibile! thank you so mutch! On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:23:20 -0200, Guilherme Covolo said: hello guys, my experimental patch need modfications on fs/reiser4/context.c i need help ;) You'll have to give us more info than that. What happened? Patch reject? It didn't compile? It didn't modprobe? The resulting kernel didn't boot? The resulting kernel oopsed? Other?
