On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 12:13, Oleg Drokin wrote: > Hello! > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 04:38:00PM +0400, Oleg Drokin wrote: > > > I was looking in the wrong direction, when I produced that patch, > > so it will produce zero output. > > I hope to come up with ultimate fix soon enough. ;) > > Well, there is a patch below that does *not* work for me ;) > But it should work. > I have traced the new problem to a cross compiler that compiles > code in a different way than native compiler for whatever reason > (demo is attached as test.c program, it should print "result is 1" > in case it is compiled correctly and stuff about unknown > uniqueness if it is miscompiled. In fact may be this is just correct compiler > behaviour.) > I now think that when I compile a kernel with native compiler, it should work > with below patch. But I can verify that only tomorrow it seems. > You might try that patch as well to see if it helps you before I try it ;) > The patch is "obviously correct" one. (except that it does not work > with my cross compiler and kernel does work without patch which is really-really > strange). >
Most of these changes are in 2.4.21, which I've been using on an AMD64 bit box for a while without any problems. The bug should be somewhere else, it looks to me like these spots aren't trying to send an unsigned long to disk. -chris
