thank you for your quick reply.
But I'm afraid that didn't help at all.
When I tried running the non-patched version on a 32-bit machine it worked fine.
Well "fine" is an exaggeration. Some of the tests produce unclear
outputs, some of the tests must be reconfigured to flash/flash path
instead of /flash. But in general it works ok, on a 32-bit machine.
On Nov 18, 2007 9:59 PM, Charles Manning <
manningc2@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> On Monday 19 November 2007 05:40:01 Zavi wrote:
> > I'm trying to compile Yaffs direct on a 64-bit linux machine in the
> > emulation mode, using the Makefile in the direct sub-directory.
> >
> > 1. When I tried to run the default test in direct/dtest.c-
> > resize_stress_test_no_grow("/flash/flash",20);
> >
> > I got an error message: "yaffs_Tnode should be 32 but is 64."
> > When I change the following line
> > #define YAFFS_NTNODES_INTERNAL (YAFFS_NTNODES_LEVEL0 / 2)
> > to
> > #define YAFFS_NTNODES_INTERNAL (YAFFS_NTNODES_LEVEL0 / 4)
> > the test executes fine. Could the problem have something to do with
> > the fact my machine is 64-bit?
>
> I expect so. I don't think you should try to fix it like this though.
>
> The problem is most likely due to the tnode allocations not being wide enough
> to hold 64-bit pointers. Try this patch instead.
>
> --- yaffs_guts.c.old 2007-11-19 08:48:44.000000000 +1300
> +++ yaffs_guts.c 2007-11-19 08:48:44.000000000 +1300
> @@ -1146,6 +1146,10 @@
> * Must be a multiple of 32-bits */
> tnodeSize = (dev->tnodeWidth * YAFFS_NTNODES_LEVEL0)/8;
>
> + if(tnodeSize < sizeof(yaffs_Tnode))
> + tnodeSize = sizeof(yaffs_Tnode);
> +
> +
> /* make these things */
>
> newTnodes = YMALLOC(nTnodes * tnodeSize);
>
>
>
> >
> > 2. Even after this I'm still having problems with all the following
> > tests (last tests in dtest.c) -
> > long_test_on_path("/ram2k");
> > long_test_on_path("/flash");
> > simple_rw_test("/flash/flash");
> > fill_disk_test("/flash/flash");
> > rename_over_test("/flash");
> > ...
> >
> > I keep getting a segmentation fault, and trying to trace it led me to
> > the return statement of yaffs_write for no apparent reason.
> > What could be the reason? can it be it's again related to the 64-bit issue?
>
> I think it was most likely caused by the way you tried to fix it.
>
> Try the above patch instead. Please get back to me as to how this works.
>
> -- CHarles
>
> _______________________________________________
> yaffs mailing list
> yaffs@lists.aleph1.co.uk
> http://lists.aleph1.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/yaffs
>
(text/plain)