Hi,
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 03:51, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The spec says "Write I/O operations on the file descriptor shall complete
> as defined by synchronized I/O file integrity completion".
>
> Is ftruncate a "write I/O operation"? No.
SUS seems to be pretty clear on this. The syscall descri
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi. We're doing some checking on Linux file systems and found
> what appears to be a bug in the Linux 2.6.11 implementation of
> ext3: when ftruncate shrinks a file, using a file descriptor
> opened with O_SYNC, the file size is not updated synchronously.
>
Hi. We're doing some checking on Linux file systems and found
what appears to be a bug in the Linux 2.6.11 implementation of
ext3: when ftruncate shrinks a file, using a file descriptor
opened with O_SYNC, the file size is not updated synchronously.
I've appended a test program that illustrates th
Jeffrey E. Hundstad wrote:
linux-2.6.10 has some bio problems that are fixed in the current
linux-2.6.11 release candidates. The bio problems wreaked havoc with
XFS and there were people reporting EXT3 problems as well with this
bug. I'd recommend trying the latest release candidate and see if
linux-2.6.10 has some bio problems that are fixed in the current
linux-2.6.11 release candidates. The bio problems wreaked havoc with
XFS and there were people reporting EXT3 problems as well with this
bug. I'd recommend trying the latest release candidate and see if your
problem vanishes.
-
jmerkey wrote:
Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
Le lundi 28 février 2005 à 08:31 -0700, jmerkey a écrit :
I see this problem infrequently on systems that have low memory
conditions and
with heavy swapping.I have not seen it on 2.6.9 but I have seen
it on 2.6.10.
My machine has 1 GB RAM and I was
Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
Le lundi 28 février 2005 à 08:31 -0700, jmerkey a écrit :
I see this problem infrequently on systems that have low memory
conditions and
with heavy swapping.I have not seen it on 2.6.9 but I have seen it
on 2.6.10.
My machine has 1 GB RAM and I wasn't using muc
Le lundi 28 février 2005 à 08:31 -0700, jmerkey a écrit :
> I see this problem infrequently on systems that have low memory
> conditions and
> with heavy swapping.I have not seen it on 2.6.9 but I have seen it
> on 2.6.10.
My machine has 1 GB RAM and I wasn't using much of it at that time (
I see this problem infrequently on systems that have low memory
conditions and
with heavy swapping.I have not seen it on 2.6.9 but I have seen it
on 2.6.10.
Jeff
Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
Please try stock kernel. 2.6.11-rc3 onwards should be fine. - I saw a similar
problem while running 2.6.1
On Sunday 27 February 2005 09:04 pm, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> What has been changed in
> 2.6.11-rcX?
Don't know exactly what changed but when I faced this issue Greg KH suggested
to reproduce on 2.6.11-rc3 and it didn't happen there.
(I am assuming that the issue you are seeing is the same as wh
> Hmm.. So that error is not FC3 specific, it is present in stock 2.6.10 as
> well. Also - This is on a USB disk, right? If so, the error may re-surface.
> Try upgrading to latest kernel if possible.
It's a USB disk (3.5" IDE + IDE to USB). What has been changed in
2.6.11-rcX?
Jean-Ma
On Sunday 27 February 2005 05:58 pm, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> I did use a stock 2.6.10 kernel (I said custom in the sense that it
> wasn't a Debian kernel). After a reboot, I was able to run fsck on the
> disk (many, many errors) and it went fine after.
Hmm.. So that error is not FC3 specific, it
> Please try stock kernel. 2.6.11-rc3 onwards should be fine. - I saw a similar
> problem while running 2.6.10 kernel from Fedora Core 3. It doesn't happen
> with stock kernels.
I did use a stock 2.6.10 kernel (I said custom in the sense that it
wasn't a Debian kernel). After a reboot, I was abl
On Sunday 27 February 2005 02:27 pm, Dave Jones wrote:
> Which is very odd considering the only ext3 patches in the Fedora
> kernel are in 2.6.11rc.
This seems to be more of an USB-Storage issue than ext3.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a m
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 02:06:30PM -0500, Parag Warudkar wrote:
> On Sunday 27 February 2005 02:04 am, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Looks like I ran into an ext3 bug (or at least the log says so). I got a
> > bunch of messages like:
> > ext3_fre
On Sunday 27 February 2005 02:04 am, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Looks like I ran into an ext3 bug (or at least the log says so). I got a
> bunch of messages like:
> ext3_free_blocks_sb: aborting transaction: Journal has aborted in
> __ext3_journal_get_undo_access<2>EX
Hi,
Looks like I ran into an ext3 bug (or at least the log says so). I got a
bunch of messages like:
ext3_free_blocks_sb: aborting transaction: Journal has aborted in
__ext3_journal_get_undo_access<2>EXT3-fs error (device sda2) in
ext3_free_blocks_sb: Journal has aborted
EXT3-fs error (
17 matches
Mail list logo
