Messages in this thread | | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Date | Wed, 17 Nov 2021 21:18:56 +0100 | Subject | Re: Linux 5.16-rc1 |
| |
Hi Michael,
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:39 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> writes: > > fs/ntfs/aops.c: In function 'ntfs_write_mst_block': > > fs/ntfs/aops.c:1311:1: error: the frame size of 2240 bytes is larger than 2048 bytes > > > > Bisect points to commit f22969a6604 ("powerpc/64s: Default to 64K pages for > > 64 bit book3s"), and reverting that commit does fix the problem. > > The problem is > > ntfs_inode *locked_nis[PAGE_SIZE / NTFS_BLOCK_SIZE]; > > > > I don't see the problem in next-20211115, but I don't immediately see how it was fixed there. > > I still see it in next. > > I don't know what to do about it though. The NTFS folks presumably don't > want to rewrite their code to avoid a warning on powerpc, we have no > real interest in NTFS, and definitely no expertise in the NTFS code. We > don't want to revert the 64K change, and even if we did the warning > would still be there for other 64K page configs.
Do you have a pointer to that discussion? I couldn't find it.
Why does the ntfs code have a need to allocate an array (regardless whether it's on the stack or not) with a size related to PAGE_SIZE? Shouldn't the array's size be related to a parameter of the file system on the storage device, instead of a parameter of the system it is running on?
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
| |