On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 03:10:52PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
% git-log 84e1e99f112dead8f9ba036c02d24a9f5ce7f544 |head -10
commit 84e1e99f112dead8f9ba036c02d24a9f5ce7f544
Author: David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jun 18 16:50:27 2007 +1000
[XFS] Prevent ENOSPC from aborting
Hi all
max_debt is used in ext2's find_group_orlov . In ext4's
find_group_orlov, max_debt is only computed, but not used. I wonder
whether it's a typo, Can anyone give me a answer? The kernel source I
read is 2.6.22.
Thanks in advance.
Best Regards
YZ
-
To unsubscribe from
Hi all,
Here is a list of some known regressions in 2.6.22-git.
Feel free to add new regressions/remove fixed etc.
http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions
List of Aces
NameRegressions fixed since 21-Jun-2007
Adrian Bunk3
Andi Kleen
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 06:34:55PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
SYSFS
Subject : sysfs root link count broken in 2.6.22-git5
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/15/62
Last known good : ?
Submitter : Jean Delvare [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : ?
Handled-By
Subject : ext4 build warnings
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/18/420
Last known good : ?
Submitter : Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : ?
Handled-By : Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status : unknown
Mingming Cao fixed this:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
Subject : ext4 build warnings
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/18/420
Last known good : ?
Submitter : Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : ?
Handled-By : Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status : unknown
Mingming Cao fixed
On 19/07/07, Satyam Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject : ext4 build warnings
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/18/420
Last known good : ?
Submitter : Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : ?
Handled-By : Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status
On Thursday 19 July 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
IDE
Subject : compile error if CONFIG_BLOCK not enabled related to
linux/ide.h include
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/18/11
Last known good : ?
Submitter : Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : ?
-release is the proper way to detect the last close of a file,
file_count should never be used in filesystems.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: linux-2.6/fs/coda/dir.c
===
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/coda/dir.c
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
-release is the proper way to detect the last close of a file,
file_count should never be used in filesystems.
Has been tried, the problem with that once -release is called it is too
late to pass the the error back to close(2).
On Jul 18, 2007 20:41 -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 12:16:25AM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
After a successful call, subsequent writes are guaranteed not to fail
because of lack of disk space.
If a write to an unwritten region requires a node split, that could result
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:00:03 +0200
Jörn Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 9 July 2007 22:01:48 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Yes. Note that ext2_clear_inode() is referenced from ext2_sops, so even
empty, it leaves traces in resulting kernel.
Is that your opinion or have you
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 06:16:00PM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
-release is the proper way to detect the last close of a file,
file_count should never be used in filesystems.
Has been tried, the problem with that once -release
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:45:34AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 06:16:00PM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
-release is the proper way to detect the last close of a file,
file_count should never be used in
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:53:16AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:45:34AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 06:16:00PM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
-release is the proper way to detect the
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:53:16AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:45:34AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 06:16:00PM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
-release is the proper way to detect the
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:36:01PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
To the context that dropped the last reference. It can't be
reported to anything else
Oh, for fsck sake...
Send a datagram with SCM_RIGHTS in it. Have all other references
to these files closed. Now have close(2) kill the
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 04:16:31AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:36:01PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
To the context that dropped the last reference. It can't be
reported to anything else
Oh, for fsck sake...
Here is a patch which removes the file_count test from
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:10:00AM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
I will try to find a clean way to block the close syscall until fput
drops the last reference. However I realize that such an implementation
would not be acceptable for other file systems, and there are some
interesting unresolved
19 matches
Mail list logo
