Linux next 20201103 tag make modules failed for i386 and arm architecture builds.
Error log: LD [M] fs/btrfs/btrfs.o MODPOST Module.symvers ERROR: modpost: "__udivdi3" [fs/btrfs/btrfs.ko] undefined! scripts/Makefile.modpost:111: recipe for target 'Module.symvers' failed make[2]: *** [Module.symvers] Error 1
Full build log, https://ci.linaro.org/view/lkft/job/openembedded-lkft-linux-next/DISTRO=lkft... https://ci.linaro.org/view/lkft/job/openembedded-lkft-linux-next/DISTRO=lkft...
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 10:43 AM Naresh Kamboju naresh.kamboju@linaro.org wrote:
Linux next 20201103 tag make modules failed for i386 and arm architecture builds.
Error log: LD [M] fs/btrfs/btrfs.o MODPOST Module.symvers ERROR: modpost: "__udivdi3" [fs/btrfs/btrfs.ko] undefined! scripts/Makefile.modpost:111: recipe for target 'Module.symvers' failed make[2]: *** [Module.symvers] Error 1
Full build log, https://ci.linaro.org/view/lkft/job/openembedded-lkft-linux-next/DISTRO=lkft... https://ci.linaro.org/view/lkft/job/openembedded-lkft-linux-next/DISTRO=lkft...
-- Linaro LKFT https://lkft.linaro.org
Yeah, I had a look earlier today, thanks to the kisskb builder, and the btrfs people are working on a fix. Interestingly, the issue was reported in September, and still entered linux-next, so we all had a great time to look into it ;-)
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/202009160107.DZZO6Dfi%25lkp@intel.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20201102073114.66750-1-wqu@suse.com/
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
On 2020/11/3 下午5:47, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 10:43 AM Naresh Kamboju naresh.kamboju@linaro.org wrote:
Linux next 20201103 tag make modules failed for i386 and arm architecture builds.
Error log: LD [M] fs/btrfs/btrfs.o MODPOST Module.symvers ERROR: modpost: "__udivdi3" [fs/btrfs/btrfs.ko] undefined! scripts/Makefile.modpost:111: recipe for target 'Module.symvers' failed make[2]: *** [Module.symvers] Error 1
Full build log, https://ci.linaro.org/view/lkft/job/openembedded-lkft-linux-next/DISTRO=lkft... https://ci.linaro.org/view/lkft/job/openembedded-lkft-linux-next/DISTRO=lkft...
-- Linaro LKFT https://lkft.linaro.org
Yeah, I had a look earlier today, thanks to the kisskb builder, and the btrfs people are working on a fix. Interestingly, the issue was reported in September, and still entered linux-next, so we all had a great time to look into it ;-)
Yeah, we all know that and how to fix it (just call do_div64() for u64 / u32). But at that time we're already working on a better solution, other than using do_div64(), we use sectorsize_bits shift to replace the division, and unfortunately the bit shift fix didn't get merged until recently.
Considering that patch is only designed to be merged after the bit shift fix patch, we're not that concerned. (Until some other guys are complaining about the linux-next branch).
Thanks, Qu
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/202009160107.DZZO6Dfi%25lkp@intel.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20201102073114.66750-1-wqu@suse.com/
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 06:21:06PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2020/11/3 下午5:47, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 10:43 AM Naresh Kamboju naresh.kamboju@linaro.org wrote:
Linux next 20201103 tag make modules failed for i386 and arm architecture builds.
Error log: LD [M] fs/btrfs/btrfs.o MODPOST Module.symvers ERROR: modpost: "__udivdi3" [fs/btrfs/btrfs.ko] undefined! scripts/Makefile.modpost:111: recipe for target 'Module.symvers' failed make[2]: *** [Module.symvers] Error 1
Full build log, https://ci.linaro.org/view/lkft/job/openembedded-lkft-linux-next/DISTRO=lkft... https://ci.linaro.org/view/lkft/job/openembedded-lkft-linux-next/DISTRO=lkft...
-- Linaro LKFT https://lkft.linaro.org
Yeah, I had a look earlier today, thanks to the kisskb builder, and the btrfs people are working on a fix. Interestingly, the issue was reported in September, and still entered linux-next, so we all had a great time to look into it ;-)
Yeah, we all know that and how to fix it (just call do_div64() for u64 / u32). But at that time we're already working on a better solution, other than using do_div64(), we use sectorsize_bits shift to replace the division, and unfortunately the bit shift fix didn't get merged until recently.
Considering that patch is only designed to be merged after the bit shift fix patch, we're not that concerned. (Until some other guys are complaining about the linux-next branch).
I've pushed updated for-next that uses the sectorsize_bits.
-
David Sterba -
Geert Uytterhoeven -
Naresh Kamboju -
Qu Wenruo