On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 07:20:33PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I dunno. Filesystem corruption makes me nervous. So I'm certainly > totally willing to do the revert if that makes ocfs2 work again. Even > if "work again" happens to be partly by mistake, and for some reason > that isn't obvious.
Filesystem corruption makes me more than nervous. I'm quite devastated by this. > Your call, I guess. If any ocfs2 fix looks scary, and you'd prefer to > have an -rc4 (in a few days - not today) with just the revert, I'm ok > with that. Even if it's only a "at least no worse than 2.6.34" > situation rather than a real fix. I've checked both before this patch and with the patch reverted. We corrupt in both cases. The problem is our assumption about zeroing past i_size. The revert will fix our BUG_ON, but not the corruption. Mark and I have ideas on how to fix the actual bug, but they will take some time and especially testing. We also have some shorter-term ideas on how to paper over the issue. We have to have to have this fixed by .35. If -rc4 isn't coming for a couple of days, can we hold off on the decision until we get a chance to think about a paper-over solution for it? Then we can avoid the revert. Joel -- You can use a screwdriver to screw in screws or to clean your ears, however, the latter needs real skill, determination and a lack of fear of injuring yourself. It is much the same with JavaScript. - Chris Heilmann Joel Becker Consulting Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.bec...@oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127 _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel