[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?



Am Freitag, 26. August 2011 schrieb Jens Axboe:
> 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=unst
> >>>> abl 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
> 
> :-)

Okay, so I look into updating the package. Can take a while, I hope to 
come to it next week. I will then close this bug via changelog entry. 
Prior to having it uploaded I would like to have the patch compiled and 
tested. Nobuhiro can you do it on SuperH? If need be, I can update the 
debian git repo for fio first. Hopefully next week.

Thanks,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


Reply to: