Re: reiser4 experimental patch
i change my patch, now is equals of the Johannes Hirte's patch .. only difference is my patch have the comment /* change */ in the source. run on x86_64 fine! :) my patch and the Johannes Hirte's patch is linked in my site, www.youare.not.br thanks to all! Em Sexta 10 Novembro 2006 12:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu: > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:59:30 -0200, Guilherme Covolo said: > > the diference between my an Johannes Hirte's patch is: > > * > > > > /fs/reiser4/super_ops.c > > > > 290c290 > > < static int reiser4_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs > > *statfs) --- > > > > > static int reiser4_statfs(struct super_block *super, struct kstatfs > > > *statfs > > diff -c or diff -u please. That way, if some unrelated thing moves the > lines up or down 1 or 2, it still applies. Also, it's easier to look at a > 'diff -u' and understand what's going on, because you get to see 3-4 lines > either side of the changed lines. > > > i change my super_ops.c but why you alter te int to ssize_t on item.h? > > ssize_t isn't an int on some architectures, it's a 'long'. As a result if > you reference a 32 bit value where you should use 64, you'll certainly > end up with something unexpected (probably an oops).
Re: reiser4 experimental patch
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:59:30 -0200, Guilherme Covolo said: > the diference between my an Johannes Hirte's patch is: > * > > /fs/reiser4/super_ops.c > > 290c290 > < static int reiser4_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *statfs) > --- > > static int reiser4_statfs(struct super_block *super, struct kstatfs *statfs diff -c or diff -u please. That way, if some unrelated thing moves the lines up or down 1 or 2, it still applies. Also, it's easier to look at a 'diff -u' and understand what's going on, because you get to see 3-4 lines either side of the changed lines. > i change my super_ops.c but why you alter te int to ssize_t on item.h? ssize_t isn't an int on some architectures, it's a 'long'. As a result if you reference a 32 bit value where you should use 64, you'll certainly end up with something unexpected (probably an oops). pgp89gE9Ad8ly.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: reiser4 experimental patch
Am Freitag, 10. November 2006 13:59 schrieb Guilherme Covolo:
> the diference between my an Johannes Hirte's patch is:
>
> /fs/reiser4/plugins/item/item.h
>
> < ssize_t (*write) (struct file *, const char __user *, size_t,
> loff_t *pos);
> ---
>
> > int (*write) (struct file *, const char __user *, size_t, loff_t
>
> *pos);
> *
Don't know, if this is only cosmetic or really necessary. See below.
> /fs/reiser4/super_ops.c
>
> 290c290
> < static int reiser4_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *statfs)
> ---
>
> > static int reiser4_statfs(struct super_block *super, struct kstatfs
> > *statfs)
>
> 292,293d291
> < struct super_block *super = dentry->d_sb;
> <
> 571a570,571
>
> > // alterado
>
> 575,576c575
> < void *data,
> < struct vfsmount *mnt)
> ---
>
> > void *data, struct vfsmount *mnt)
>
> 582c581,582
> < static struct file_system_type reiser4_fs_type = {
> ---
>
> > // alterado
> > struct file_system_type reiser4_fs_type = {
Ok, with gcc-4.1 your patch won't even compile. After fixing this, it should
work. Please consider that this code ist still buggy and will oops if the
filesystem runs full. Don't use it in productive environment.
> *
>
> i change my super_ops.c but why you alter te int to ssize_t on item.h?
This is for fixing a compiler warning on x86_64, where size_t is 64bit:
CC fs/reiser4/plugin/item/item.o
fs/reiser4/plugin/item/item.c:561: warning: initialization from incompatible
pointer type
fs/reiser4/plugin/item/item.c:615: warning: initialization from incompatible
pointer type
CC fs/reiser4/plugin/security/perm.o
I'm still not shure, if this is really necessary.
Re: reiser4 experimental patch
the diference between my an Johannes Hirte's patch is:
/fs/reiser4/plugins/item/item.h
< ssize_t (*write) (struct file *, const char __user *, size_t, loff_t
*pos);
---
> int (*write) (struct file *, const char __user *, size_t, loff_t
*pos);
*
/fs/reiser4/super_ops.c
290c290
< static int reiser4_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *statfs)
---
> static int reiser4_statfs(struct super_block *super, struct kstatfs *statfs)
292,293d291
< struct super_block *super = dentry->d_sb;
<
571a570,571
>
> // alterado
575,576c575
< void *data,
< struct vfsmount *mnt)
---
> void *data, struct vfsmount *mnt)
582c581,582
< static struct file_system_type reiser4_fs_type = {
---
> // alterado
> struct file_system_type reiser4_fs_type = {
*
i change my super_ops.c but why you alter te int to ssize_t on item.h?
()'s
Em Sexta 10 Novembro 2006 09:57, Guilherme Covolo escreveu:
> Em Sexta 10 Novembro 2006 09:44, Johannes Hirte escreveu:
> > Am Freitag, 10. November 2006 00:39 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > > thanks for answer! :)
> > >
> > > so, the patch compiles fine (one warning in super_ops.c), the FS boot
> > > correctly, but if i execute for exemple startx, kernel panic! i compile
> > > reiser4 built in with debug, i will send the error (kernel panic) to
> > > the list tomorow because i'm now in my house, and the experinet is on
> > > my work computer :)
> >
> > I didn't look closer on your patch, but you shouldn't get a warning in
> > super_ops.c. Which compiler do you use?
> > Can you try the patch, I've made?
> > http://www.stud.tu-ilmenau.de/~johi-in/patch-reiser4-2.6.18.bz2
>
> Hello,
>
> i use gcc 3.4.6 on slamd64 (www.slamd64.com), x86_64.
>
> i will try your patch :)
>
> i'm on-line now on irc.oftc.net nick smyows #reiser4 and my nootebook is on
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...
>
> error from boot today..
>
> reiser4 panicked cowaedly: reiser4[mount(1909)]: check_blocks_bitmap
> (fs/reiser4/plugin/space/bitmap.c:1268)[zam-623]: assertion failed:
> reiser4_find_next_zero_bit(bnode_working_data(bnode), end_offset,
> start_offset) >= end_offset
>
> Kernel panic - not syncing: reiser4[mount(1909)]: check_blocks_bitmap
> (fs/reiser4/plugin/space/bitmap.c:1268)[zam-623]: assertion failed:
> reiser4_find_next_zero_bit(bnode_working_data(bnode), end_offset,
> start_offset) >= end_offset
>
> ...
>
> yesterday give some error but in /fs/reiser4/context.c line 79
>
> i reboot the computer and works now.
>
> i'll compare the super_ops.c :)
>
> thaks
Re: reiser4 experimental patch
Em Sexta 10 Novembro 2006 09:44, Johannes Hirte escreveu: > Am Freitag, 10. November 2006 00:39 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > thanks for answer! :) > > > > so, the patch compiles fine (one warning in super_ops.c), the FS boot > > correctly, but if i execute for exemple startx, kernel panic! i compile > > reiser4 built in with debug, i will send the error (kernel panic) to the > > list tomorow because i'm now in my house, and the experinet is on my work > > computer :) > > I didn't look closer on your patch, but you shouldn't get a warning in > super_ops.c. Which compiler do you use? > Can you try the patch, I've made? > http://www.stud.tu-ilmenau.de/~johi-in/patch-reiser4-2.6.18.bz2 Hello, i use gcc 3.4.6 on slamd64 (www.slamd64.com), x86_64. i will try your patch :) i'm on-line now on irc.oftc.net nick smyows #reiser4 and my nootebook is on [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... error from boot today.. reiser4 panicked cowaedly: reiser4[mount(1909)]: check_blocks_bitmap (fs/reiser4/plugin/space/bitmap.c:1268)[zam-623]: assertion failed: reiser4_find_next_zero_bit(bnode_working_data(bnode), end_offset, start_offset) >= end_offset Kernel panic - not syncing: reiser4[mount(1909)]: check_blocks_bitmap (fs/reiser4/plugin/space/bitmap.c:1268)[zam-623]: assertion failed: reiser4_find_next_zero_bit(bnode_working_data(bnode), end_offset, start_offset) >= end_offset ... yesterday give some error but in /fs/reiser4/context.c line 79 i reboot the computer and works now. i'll compare the super_ops.c :) thaks
Re: reiser4 experimental patch
Am Freitag, 10. November 2006 00:39 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > thanks for answer! :) > > so, the patch compiles fine (one warning in super_ops.c), the FS boot > correctly, but if i execute for exemple startx, kernel panic! i compile > reiser4 built in with debug, i will send the error (kernel panic) to the > list tomorow because i'm now in my house, and the experinet is on my work > computer :) I didn't look closer on your patch, but you shouldn't get a warning in super_ops.c. Which compiler do you use? Can you try the patch, I've made? http://www.stud.tu-ilmenau.de/~johi-in/patch-reiser4-2.6.18.bz2
Re: reiser4 experimental patch
thanks for answer! :) so, the patch compiles fine (one warning in super_ops.c), the FS boot correctly, but if i execute for exemple startx, kernel panic! i compile reiser4 built in with debug, i will send the error (kernel panic) to the list tomorow because i'm now in my house, and the experinet is on my work computer :) i don't have much knowledge in C, kernel programer (i'm noob!), and so sorry my poor english :) but if the comunity works together, i beliave it is posibile! thank you so mutch! > On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:23:20 -0200, Guilherme Covolo said: >> hello guys, >> >> my experimental patch need modfications on fs/reiser4/context.c >> >> i need help ;) > > You'll have to give us more info than that. What happened? > > Patch reject? It didn't compile? It didn't modprobe? The resulting kernel > didn't boot? The resulting kernel oopsed? Other? > >
Re: reiser4 experimental patch
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:23:20 -0200, Guilherme Covolo said: > hello guys, > > my experimental patch need modfications on fs/reiser4/context.c > > i need help ;) You'll have to give us more info than that. What happened? Patch reject? It didn't compile? It didn't modprobe? The resulting kernel didn't boot? The resulting kernel oopsed? Other? pgpL4a0CRF33Z.pgp Description: PGP signature
reiser4 experimental patch
hello guys, my experimental patch need modfications on fs/reiser4/context.c i need help ;)
