2.6.22: ERROR: "__ucmpdi2" [drivers/net/s2io.ko] undefined!

On Tue, Jun 19, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de> wrote:
> > What happend to __ucmpdi2 from David Woodhouse?
> > google has a few hits about stuff like this on 32bit powerpc with gcc 4.1.2:
> >
> > ERROR: "__ucmpdi2" [drivers/net/s2io.ko] undefined!
> >
> > using the drivers/net/s2io* files from 2.6.21 with 2.6.22-rc5 fixes the
> > compile.
> >
> > 25805dcf adds two u64 >>= 48 followed by
> > a switch statement (line 2889 and 6816).
>
> Probably the "switch(err) {" needs a cast to a smaller type (like u8).

This change removes the compiler-generated calls to __ucmpdi2.
Signed-off-by: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>

drivers/net/s2io.c

@@ -2868,6 +2868,7 @@ static void tx_intr_handler(struct fifo_info *fifo_data)
 	struct tx_curr_get_info get_info, put_info;
 	struct sk_buff *skb;
 	struct TxD *txdlp;
+	u8 err_mask;
 
 	get_info = fifo_data->tx_curr_get_info;
 	memcpy(&put_info, &fifo_data->tx_curr_put_info, sizeof(put_info));
@@ -2886,8 +2887,8 @@ static void tx_intr_handler(struct fifo_info *fifo_data)
 			}
 
 			/* update t_code statistics */
-			err >>= 48;
-			switch(err) {
+			err_mask = err >> 48;
+			switch(err_mask) {
 				case 2:
 					nic->mac_control.stats_info->sw_stat.
 							tx_buf_abort_cnt++;
@@ -6805,6 +6806,7 @@ static int rx_osm_handler(struct ring_info *ring_data, struct RxD_t * rxdp)
 	u16 l3_csum, l4_csum;
 	unsigned long long err = rxdp->Control_1 & RXD_T_CODE;
 	struct lro *lro;
+	u8 err_mask;
 
 	skb->dev = dev;
 
@@ -6813,8 +6815,8 @@ static int rx_osm_handler(struct ring_info *ring_data, struct RxD_t * rxdp)
 		if (err & 0x1) {
 			sp->mac_control.stats_info->sw_stat.parity_err_cnt++;
 		}
-		err >>= 48;
-		switch(err) {
+		err_mask = err >> 48;
+		switch(err_mask) {
 			case 1:
 				sp->mac_control.stats_info->sw_stat.
 				rx_parity_err_cnt++;
@@ -6867,9 +6869,9 @@ static int rx_osm_handler(struct ring_info *ring_data, struct RxD_t * rxdp)
 		* Note that in this case, since checksum will be incorrect,
 		* stack will validate the same.
 		*/
-		if (err != 0x5) {
-			DBG_PRINT(ERR_DBG, "%s: Rx error Value: 0x%llx\n",
-				dev->name, err);
+		if (err_mask != 0x5) {
+			DBG_PRINT(ERR_DBG, "%s: Rx error Value: 0x%x\n",
+				dev->name, err_mask);
 			sp->stats.rx_crc_errors++;
 			sp->mac_control.stats_info->sw_stat.mem_freed 
 				+= skb->truesize;