On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:22:12AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> OK, of the four fixes I had in my branch, three are Cc:stable and I
> have pushed them to linux-mtd.git. I'll give them a day or two in
> linux-next and then send a pull request.
>
> The fourth, which is just a mount speedup, I've
On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 10:57 +0100, thomas.bet...@rohde-schwarz.com wrote:
> Hello Joakim:
>
> > Can we get this upstream before next release? I don't think there
> > will much more
> > testing at this point.
>
> I would second this. Actually, I did some additional stress testing, but
> didn't s
Hello Joakim:
> Can we get this upstream before next release? I don't think there
> will much more
> testing at this point.
I would second this. Actually, I did some additional stress testing, but
didn't see any problems.
Best regards,
Thomas
On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 10:57 +0100, thomas.bet...@rohde-schwarz.com wrote:
> Hello David:
>
> >
> > >
> > > Please could you try what's in the tree at
> > > http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/jffs2-fixes.git
> >
> > Your patch looks much simpler, and I will definitely test it. It may
> > take
Hello David:
> > Please could you try what's in the tree at
> > http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/jffs2-fixes.git
> Your patch looks much simpler, and I will definitely test it. It may
> take a few days, though, as I have to unearth the test scripts, and
> find a time slot for testing.
Here
Hello David:
> > Subject: [PATCH] Revert "jffs2: Fix lock acquisition order bug in
> > jffs2_write_begin"
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.mtd/62951
> >
> > This is a patch revising my original patch, which I sent to linux-mtd
on
> > 10-Nov-2015. I didn't see a response yet, bu
On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 09:16 +0100, thomas.bet...@rohde-schwarz.com wrote:
>
> Subject: [PATCH] Revert "jffs2: Fix lock acquisition order bug in
> jffs2_write_begin"
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.mtd/62951
>
> This is a patch revising my original patch, which I sent to linux-mtd
Hello Brian:
> No, I'm pretty sure this is not the first report. I think there have
> even been patches. The problem is that JFFS2 is effectively
> unmaintained, despite what MAINTAINERS has to say about it.
>
> Previous reports:
>
> Subject: Another JFFS2 dead
> I am not sure if this is the first time I hear this or if someone else has
> reported
> a similar issue.
No, I'm pretty sure this is not the first report. I think there have
even been patches. The problem is that JFFS2 is effectively
unmaintained, despite what MAINTAINERS has t
On 26/02/13 23:17, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:54:56 + Mark Jackson wrote:
>>
>> Just tested the current next-20130226 on a custom AM335X board, and I
>> received the JFFS2 deadlock shown below.
>
> Is this new today? is
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:17:04AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:54:56 + Mark Jackson wrote:
> >
> > Just tested the current next-20130226 on a custom AM335X board, and I
> > received the JFFS2 deadlock shown below.
>
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:54:56 + Mark Jackson wrote:
>
> Just tested the current next-20130226 on a custom AM335X board, and I
> received the JFFS2 deadlock shown below.
Is this new today? is it reproducible? Does if ail for Linus' tree?
Al, could this be something
Just tested the current next-20130226 on a custom AM335X board, and I received
the JFFS2 deadlock shown below.
Regards
Mark JACKSON
---
[3.250349] jffs2: notice: (1) jffs2_build_xattr_subsystem: complete
building xattr subsystem, 0 of xdatum (0 unchecked, 0 orphan) and 0 of xref (0
dead, 0
On 31/08/2007, Jason Lunz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 11:23:55AM -0700, Jason Lunz wrote:
> > commit 1d8715b388c978b0f1b1bf4812fcee0e73b023d7 was added between
> > 2.6.22.4 and 2.6.22.5 to cure a locking problem, but it seems to have
> > introduced another (worse?) one.
>
>
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 11:23:55AM -0700, Jason Lunz wrote:
> commit 1d8715b388c978b0f1b1bf4812fcee0e73b023d7 was added between
> 2.6.22.4 and 2.6.22.5 to cure a locking problem, but it seems to have
> introduced another (worse?) one.
I spoke too soon. I checked more carefully, and this problem wa
commit 1d8715b388c978b0f1b1bf4812fcee0e73b023d7 was added between
2.6.22.4 and 2.6.22.5 to cure a locking problem, but it seems to have
introduced another (worse?) one.
With a jffs2 filesystem (on block2mtd) on a 2.6.22.5 kernel, if I do
anything that appends to a file with many small writes, I g
16 matches
Mail list logo
