On Fri, 2014-06-20 at 00:04 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Wow that's junk issued by an Exchange server ... Alan, really ...
>
> Blame evolution. It apparently thinks that if you follow up to your own
> email from one address it should randomly switch to another.
so you @linux.intel.com is sane and
> Wow that's junk issued by an Exchange server ... Alan, really ...
Blame evolution. It apparently thinks that if you follow up to your own
email from one address it should randomly switch to another.
> Do you have CONFIG_LBD turned on? That's supposed to let us go up to
> about 16TB before we
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 09:33:26AM +, Cox, Alan wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 10:30 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The block code has 32bit cleanness problems with the iterator. This
> > prevents things like partitioning a 32GB volume on a 32bit system.
> >
> > I hit this with a volume of
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 11:43 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 09:33 +, Cox, Alan wrote:
> > NrybXǧv^){.n+{~^b^nrzh& Gh(階ݢj"mzޖfh~m
>
> Wow that's junk issued by an Exchange server ... Alan, really ...
I'm guessing that would be your client (Evolution) trying to
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:43:57 -0700 James Bottomley
wrote:
> Do you have CONFIG_LBD turned on? That's supposed to let us go up to
> about 16TB before we run out of page index bits. If you do, we might
> have a variable that's int but should be sector_t somewhere.
I assume the problem is that
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 09:33 +, Cox, Alan wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 10:30 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The block code has 32bit cleanness problems with the iterator. This
> > prevents things like partitioning a 32GB volume on a 32bit system.
> >
> > I hit this with a volume of exactly 32GB
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 10:30 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> The block code has 32bit cleanness problems with the iterator. This
> prevents things like partitioning a 32GB volume on a 32bit system.
>
> I hit this with a volume of exactly 32GB in size (easy to duplicate with
> virtual machines). Tracing
The block code has 32bit cleanness problems with the iterator. This
prevents things like partitioning a 32GB volume on a 32bit system.
I hit this with a volume of exactly 32GB in size (easy to duplicate with
virtual machines). Tracing at step by step through the kernel I found
the problem lines
The block code has 32bit cleanness problems with the iterator. This
prevents things like partitioning a 32GB volume on a 32bit system.
I hit this with a volume of exactly 32GB in size (easy to duplicate with
virtual machines). Tracing at step by step through the kernel I found
the problem lines
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 10:30 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
The block code has 32bit cleanness problems with the iterator. This
prevents things like partitioning a 32GB volume on a 32bit system.
I hit this with a volume of exactly 32GB in size (easy to duplicate with
virtual machines). Tracing at
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 09:33 +, Cox, Alan wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 10:30 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
The block code has 32bit cleanness problems with the iterator. This
prevents things like partitioning a 32GB volume on a 32bit system.
I hit this with a volume of exactly 32GB in size
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:43:57 -0700 James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
Do you have CONFIG_LBD turned on? That's supposed to let us go up to
about 16TB before we run out of page index bits. If you do, we might
have a variable that's int but should be sector_t
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 11:43 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 09:33 +, Cox, Alan wrote:
NrybXǧv^){.n+{~^b^nrzh Gh(階ݢjmzޖfh~m
Wow that's junk issued by an Exchange server ... Alan, really ...
I'm guessing that would be your client (Evolution) trying to decode
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 09:33:26AM +, Cox, Alan wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 10:30 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
The block code has 32bit cleanness problems with the iterator. This
prevents things like partitioning a 32GB volume on a 32bit system.
I hit this with a volume of exactly 32GB in
Wow that's junk issued by an Exchange server ... Alan, really ...
Blame evolution. It apparently thinks that if you follow up to your own
email from one address it should randomly switch to another.
Do you have CONFIG_LBD turned on? That's supposed to let us go up to
about 16TB before we
On Fri, 2014-06-20 at 00:04 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Wow that's junk issued by an Exchange server ... Alan, really ...
Blame evolution. It apparently thinks that if you follow up to your own
email from one address it should randomly switch to another.
so you @linux.intel.com is sane and you
16 matches
Mail list logo
