Re: Boot failure with ext2 and initrds

[Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>]

Yet another attempt to get a response from Andrew.  It is rather
important that you DO respond to this.

On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 02:59:16PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 12:34:48PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:22:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:55:43 -0800
> > > Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hmm, maxblocks, in bitmap_search_next_usable_block(),  is the end block 
> > > > number of the range  to search, not the lengh of the range. maxblocks 
> > > > get passed to ext2_find_next_zero_bit(), where it expecting to take the 
> > > > _size_ of the range to search instead...
> > > > 
> > > > Something like this: (this is not a patch)
> > > >   @@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ bitmap_search_next_usable_block(ext2_grp
> > > >    	ext2_grpblk_t next;
> > > > 
> > > >    -  	next = ext2_find_next_zero_bit(bh->b_data, maxblocks, start);
> > > >    +  	next = ext2_find_next_zero_bit(bh->b_data, maxblocks-start + 1, start);
> > > > 	if (next >= maxblocks)
> > > >    		return -1;
> > > >    	return next;
> > > >    }
> > > 
> > > yes, the `size' arg to find_next_zero_bit() represents the number of bits
> > > to scan at `offset'.
> > 
> > Are you sure?  That's not the way it's implemented in many architectures.
> > find_next_*_bit() has always taken "address, maximum offset, starting offset"
> > and always has returned "next offset".
> > 
> > Just look at arch/i386/lib/bitops.c:
> > 
> > int find_next_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr, int size, int offset)
> > {
> >         unsigned long * p = ((unsigned long *) addr) + (offset >> 5);
> >         int set = 0, bit = offset & 31, res;
> > ...
> >         /*
> >          * No zero yet, search remaining full bytes for a zero
> >          */
> >         res = find_first_zero_bit (p, size - 32 * (p - (unsigned long *) addr));
> >         return (offset + set + res);
> > }
> > 
> > So for the case that "offset" is aligned to a "long" boundary, that gives us:
> > 
> > 	res = find_first_zero_bit(addr + (offset>>5),
> > 			size - 32 * (addr + (offset>>5) - addr));
> > 
> > or:
> > 
> > 	res = find_first_zero_bit(addr + (offset>>5), size - (offset & ~31));
> > 
> > So, size _excludes_ offset.
> > 
> > Now, considering the return value, "res" above will be relative to
> > "addr + (offset>>5)".  However, we add "offset" on to that, so it's
> > relative to addr + (offset bits).
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> Please respond to the above.  If what you say is correct then all
> architectures need their bitops fixing to fit ext2's requirements.
> 
> -- 
> Russell King
>  Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
>  maintainer of:
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/