[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#561891: Bug 561891: Is FTBFS for fio on SuperH (sh4) resolved?

On 2011-08-26 00:16, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
> Hi,
> 2011/8/25 Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>:
>> Hi!
>> I am putting upstream author Jens Axboe on CC.
> Thanks!
>> Am Donnerstag, 25. August 2011 schrieb Nobuhiro Iwamatsu:
>>> Hi,
>> [...]
>>> 2011/8/3 Martin Steigerwald <ms@teamix.de>:
>>>> Hello Nobuhiro, Paul, hello Debian SuperH maintainers, hello Jens,
>>>> I am seeking information on the current status regarding
>>>> Please support sh4
>>>> http://bugs.debian.org/561891
>>>> and eventually help in resolving it if it has not already been
>>>> resolved.
>>>> When I am reading
>>>> http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/package.php?p=fio&suite=unstabl
>>>> e
>>>> correctly, then fio 1.50-1 has been build 167d before on buildd
>>>> kongou.
>>>> So is this issue resolved?
>>>> If not, please offer help. There is a partial patch mentioned earlier
>>>> in the bug report.
>>> By this method, we cannot support both SH4 and SH4A. When we build
>>> with machine of SH4A, a binary to work only in SH4A is built.
>>> Because Debian SH team are supporting sh4 and sh4a in one binary, this
>>> becomes the problem.
>>> And this is a problem peculiar to Debian. It will not become the
>>> problem in other distribution. (e.g., Gentoo)
>>> It is necessary to check whether you do not do it whether we support
>>> synco when we support both CPU's when we execute  *_barrier.
>>> I think that this has a big overhead.
>>> I attached quick hack patch.
>> Jens, what do you think about such a patch? Please advice.
>> Nobuhiro, where do you think comes the big overhead from? In your patch
>> you check once at beginning for sinco capability. Do you refer to the if
>> statement you added in arch/arch-sh.h?
> I thought that an overhead was bigger than the patch which you wrote as for
> my performing a check of synco every time when a program called memory barrier.
> Actually, the patch which you wrote is enough.

Then everybody's happy, the patch is in and the packages can be updated

Jens Axboe

Reply to: