linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/17] staging: lustre: lloop: Fix build failure on ppc64

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <570AC200.2020401@suse.com>
Date:	Sun, 10 Apr 2016 17:13:36 -0400
From:	Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>
To:	James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/17] staging: lustre: lloop: Fix build failure on ppc64

On 4/10/16 10:04 AM, James Simmons wrote:
> 
>> This patch was shown not to work. I just haven't removed it from opensuse yet.
> 
> Its been running in our production tree as well for some time. Guess that 
> change is a noop. In any case we have been discussing redoing the lloop 
> driver anyways. Just need to find the cycles.

I guess my memory was flakey and I was recalling the first comments in
LU-4000.  The updated version should be ok.

-Jeff

>> --
>> Jeff Mahoney
>> (apologies for the top post -- from my mobile)
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2016, at 9:13 AM, James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>
>>>
>>> On ppc64 with 64k pages, we get a build failure in lloop:
>>>
>>> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c:527:2:
>>> note: in expansion of macro 'CLASSERT'
>>> CLASSERT(PAGE_CACHE_SIZE < (1 << (sizeof(unsigned short) * 8)));
>>>
>>> There's no need to change the queue's logical block size. Even if it could
>>> accept a 64k value, that would result in any file system on top of it
>>> needing to also use 64k blocks. It'd be safe to set it to 4k, but there's
>>> no actual need for it. It's not used to split requests except for WRITE_SAME,
>>> which lloop doesn't implement anyway.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>
>>> Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-4000
>>> Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/7745
>>> Reviewed-by: Jinshan Xiong <jinshan.xiong@...el.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Minh Diep <minh.diep@...el.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c |    3 ---
>>> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c
>>> index b725fc1..f396753 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c
>>> @@ -525,9 +525,6 @@ static int loop_set_fd(struct lloop_device *lo, struct file *unused,
>>>    lo->lo_queue->queuedata = lo;
>>>
>>>    /* queue parameters */
>>> -    CLASSERT(PAGE_CACHE_SIZE < (1 << (sizeof(unsigned short) * 8)));
>>> -    blk_queue_logical_block_size(lo->lo_queue,
>>> -                     (unsigned short)PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
>>>    blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(lo->lo_queue,
>>>                 LLOOP_MAX_SEGMENTS << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - 9));
>>>    blk_queue_max_segments(lo->lo_queue, LLOOP_MAX_SEGMENTS);
>>> -- 
>>> 1.7.1
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (828 bytes)