On 01.03.2018 19:04, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 10:55:37AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 27/02/18 11:28, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> On 26/02/18 23:48, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
But still something is wrong... I've been getting occasional EXT4 Ooops's,
like
the one
On 01.03.2018 23:20, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> On Mar 1, 2018, at 9:04 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> This doesn't seem to make sense; the PC is where we are currently
>> executing, and LR is the "Link Register" where the flow of control
>> will be returning after the current function returns, right
On Mar 1, 2018, at 9:04 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> This doesn't seem to make sense; the PC is where we are currently
> executing, and LR is the "Link Register" where the flow of control
> will be returning after the current function returns, right? Well,
> dx_probe should *not* be returning to _
On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 01:15:24AM -0800, Jose R R wrote:
> Probably it is not wise to place all your eggs (data) in one basket
> (ext4) and diversify to viable alternatives which won't be affected by
> UNIX 2038 year date problem, likewise?
> <
> https://metztli.it/blog/index.php/amatl8/reiser-na
On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 10:55:37AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 27/02/18 11:28, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > On 26/02/18 23:48, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> But still something is wrong... I've been getting occasional EXT4 Ooops's,
> >> like
> >> the one below, and __wait_on_bit() is always figurin
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 27/02/18 11:28, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 26/02/18 23:48, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> But still something is wrong... I've been getting occasional EXT4 Ooops's,
>>> like
>>> the one below, and __wait_on_bit() is always figuring in the sta
