Re: [PATCH] Fix ext4 bitops

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Heiko Carstens wrote:

On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:04:04PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:22:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:02:08 +0100
Bastian Blank [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Fix ext4 bitops.

This is incomplete.  Please tell us what was "fixed".

If it was a build error then please quote the compile error output in the
changelog, as well as the usual description of what the problem is, and how
it was fixed.

| fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
| fs/ext4/mballoc.c:954: error: implicit declaration of function 'generic_find_next_le_bit'

The s390 specific bitops uses parts of the generic implementation.
Include the correct header.

That doesn't work:

fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_release_inode_pa':
mballoc.c:(.text+0x95a8a): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'
fs/built-in.o: In function `ext4_mb_init_cache':
mballoc.c:(.text+0x967ea): undefined reference to `generic_find_next_le_bit'

This still needs generic_find_next_le_bit which comes
from lib/find_next_bit.c. That one doesn't get built on s390 since we
don't set GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT.
Currently we have the lengthly patch below queued.

Similar issue on m68k. As Bastian also saw it on powerpc, I'm getting the
impression the ext4 people don't (compile) test on big endian machines?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@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