On Mon 13-05-13 09:30:36, Ted Tso wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Grumble. In this case I think bitfields are not worth the trouble with gcc. > > It's a pitty we have to spend additional 8 bytes for every journal_head but > > we'll survive... I'll send Ted a partial revert and add a comment so that > > we won't repeat this mistake in future. > > Or just switch things to use explicit 32-bit boolean operations. > Sounds the safest way to go is to simply not trust bitfields to be > something gcc is competent to compile correctly, and just open code it > in standard C. (Large portions of ext4 and e2fsprogs do this > manually, for historical reasons, and it sounds like we have a good > reason to do it going forward.) Yeah, but in this case b_jlist testing / setting would require accessor functions which is slightly ugly. For now I just submitted a revert of the bitfield part and if someone feels like saving 8 bytes in struct journal_head is worth the hassle, then we can later go that route. > Jan, Dmitry --- I still have in my tree a revert for commit 4eec708d2: > ext4: use io_end for multiple bios, since I belive Dmitry still > bisected a regression for xfstests 299. Dmitry, can you confirm that > you are definitely seeing a regression here? Jan, do you mind if we > try to figure out how to fix this during the next development cycle, > since it was part of your much longer, extensive patch series anyway? Yeah, for now just send a revert to Linus. I'll look into that failure now but since I didn't hit the problem in my testing it may take a while. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
