On Thursday 12 May 2022 20:52:30 Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi wrote:
Hi
Il gio 12 mag 2022, 20:02 Sean Nyekjaer sean@geanix.com ha scritto:
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 12:24:01PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
On Thursday 12 May 2022 12:19:01 Pali Rohár wrote:
On Monday 09 May 2022 15:08:15 Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hello,
trini@konsulko.com wrote on Thu, 5 May 2022 09:15:00 -0400:
On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 11:26:37AM +0200, Sean Nyekjaer wrote:
> From: Sean Nyekjaer sean.nyekjaer.ext@siemensgamesa.com > > When compling for x86: > ld.bfd: fs/squashfs/sqfs.o: in function `sqfs_read': > u-boot/fs/squashfs/sqfs.c:1443: undefined reference to
`__udivmoddi4'
> ld.bfd: u-boot/fs/squashfs/sqfs.c:1521: undefined reference to
`__udivmoddi4'
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Nyekjaer <
sean.nyekjaer.ext@siemensgamesa.com>
> --- > fs/squashfs/sqfs.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/squashfs/sqfs.c b/fs/squashfs/sqfs.c > index 5d9c52af80..6405db4ff3 100644 > --- a/fs/squashfs/sqfs.c > +++ b/fs/squashfs/sqfs.c > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ > */ > > #include <asm/unaligned.h> > +#include <div64.h> > #include <errno.h> > #include <fs.h> > #include <linux/types.h> > @@ -1440,7 +1441,7 @@ int sqfs_read(const char *filename, void
*buf, loff_t offset, loff_t len,
> } > > for (j = 0; j < datablk_count; j++) { > - start = data_offset / ctxt.cur_dev->blksz; > + start = do_div(data_offset, ctxt.cur_dev->blksz); > table_size = SQFS_BLOCK_SIZE(finfo.blk_sizes[j]); > table_offset = data_offset - (start *
ctxt.cur_dev->blksz);
> n_blks = DIV_ROUND_UP(table_size + table_offset, > @@ -1516,7 +1517,7 @@ int sqfs_read(const char *filename, void
*buf, loff_t offset, loff_t len,
> goto out; > } > > - start = frag_entry.start / ctxt.cur_dev->blksz; > + start = do_div(frag_entry.start, ctxt.cur_dev->blksz); > table_size = SQFS_BLOCK_SIZE(frag_entry.size); > table_offset = frag_entry.start - (start *
ctxt.cur_dev->blksz);
> n_blks = DIV_ROUND_UP(table_size + table_offset,
ctxt.cur_dev->blksz);
Adding maintainers...
I guess that's a correct fix, so
Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal miquel.raynal@bootlin.com
Thanks, Miquèl
Hello! do_div() macro modifies its first argument. It is correct? Because previous code did not modify anything.
- The semantics of do_div() are:
- u32 do_div(u64 *n, u32 base)
- {
- u32 remainder = *n % base;
- *n = *n / base;
- return remainder;
- }
And this patch replaced:
start = data_offset / ctxt.cur_dev->blksz;
by:
start = do_div(data_offset, ctxt.cur_dev->blksz);
which expands to:
start = data_offset % ctxt.cur_dev->blksz; data_offset = data_offset / ctxt.cur_dev->blksz;
Which is wrong as it calculates something totally different.
So this patch is incorrect.
Hi Pali,
Yes I agree, I got tricked by some wrong cache from Yocto :/ I have tried lldiv(), and that works on our x86 target.
start = data_offset; do_div(start, ctxt.cur_dev->blksz);
Something like this?
This is another option and seems that should be OK too.
Michael
Do you have an opinion on that? Or do you have another idea to avoid the "undefined reference to `__udivmoddi4'" error?
/Sean