[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <424d6f00-165c-196a-b951-6c156a2c4f71@roeck-us.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 02:30:44 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@...l.ru>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ufs: Fix build errors on 32 bit machines
On 06/17/2017 11:23 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:35:13AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Various 32 builds fail with error messages such as
>>
>> ERROR: "__udivdi3" [fs/ufs/ufs.ko] undefined!
>>
>> due to a variable type change from 32 bit to 64 bit.
>
> Actually, that's not the only problem in that place. The breakage
> came in 2.4.14.7; the critical part was this:
> default:
> - usb1->fs_optim = SWAB32(UFS_OPTTIME);
> + usb1->fs_optim = cpu_to_fs32(sb, UFS_OPTTIME);
>
> case UFS_OPTTIME:
> request = uspi->s_fpb;
> - if (SWAB32(usb1->fs_cstotal.cs_nffree) < uspi->s_dsize *
> + if (fs32_to_cpu(sb, usb1->fs_cstotal.cs_nffree) < uspi->s_dsize *
> (uspi->s_minfree - 2) / 100)
> break;
> - usb1->fs_optim = SWAB32(UFS_OPTSPACE);
> + usb1->fs_optim = cpu_to_fs32(sb, UFS_OPTTIME);
> break;
>
> See the problem? Instead of hysteresis loop flipping between optspace and opttime
> allocation policies, it *never* switches out of opttime.
>
Yes. Nice catch.
> That came in
>
> commit 6293d56ca18db9ed322b2a5550ac7b27bd538cff
> Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...lon.transmeta.com>
> Date: Mon Feb 4 20:33:51 2002 -0800
>
> v2.4.14.6 -> v2.4.14.7
>
> - Jeff Garzik: network driver updates
> - Christoph Hellwig: UFS filesystem byteorder cleanups
> - me: modified Andrea VM page allocator tuning
>
> so probably a typo in Christoph's patches, missed by everyone at the time.
>
> And I would prefer to have the nffree levels at which we switch back and
> forth precalculated at mount time. I'll send a fix (along with those
> for the last remaining xfstests failures) later today.
>
Agreed, but wouldn't it be more important to get the code to compile for now ?
After all, optimizing the calculation is an enhancement, not a bug fix.
Thanks,
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists