[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061129013922.053482f9.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 01:39:22 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Boot failure with ext2 and initrds
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:20:24 +0000
Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> What I'm looking for is confirmation of the semantics of
> find_next_zero_bit()
What are the existing semantics? I see no documentation in any of the
architectures I've looked at. That's my point.
>From a quick read of fs/ext2/balloc.c
ext2_find_next_zero_bit(base, size, offset)
appears to expect that base is the start of the memory buffer, size is the
number of bits at *base and offset is the bit at which to start the search,
relative to base. If a zero bit is found it will return the offset of that
bit relative to base. It will return some number greater than `size' if no
zero-bit was found.
Whether that's how all the implementors interpreted it is anyone's guess.
Presumably the architectures all do roughly the same thing.
> <extremely frustrated>
Well likewise. It appears that nobody (and about 20 people have
implemented these things) could be bothered getting off ass and documenting
the pathetic thing.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists