Re: Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:17:30PM +0100, Damien Wyart wrote: > * David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071219 11:45]: > > Can someone pass me a brown paper bag, please? > > My first impression on this bug was not so wrong, after all ;-) > > > That also explains why we haven't seen it - it requires

Re: Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

* David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071219 11:45]: > Can someone pass me a brown paper bag, please? My first impression on this bug was not so wrong, after all ;-) > That also explains why we haven't seen it - it requires the user > buffer to fill on the first entry of a backing buffer and so

Re: Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:19:47AM +1100, David Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 03:30:31PM +0100, Damien Wyart wrote: > > * David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071218 13:24]: > > > Ok. I haven't noticed anything wrong with directories up to about > > > 250,000 files in the last few days.

Re: Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:19:47AM +1100, David Chinner wrote: On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 03:30:31PM +0100, Damien Wyart wrote: * David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071218 13:24]: Ok. I haven't noticed anything wrong with directories up to about 250,000 files in the last few days. The ls -l I

Re: Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

* David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071219 11:45]: Can someone pass me a brown paper bag, please? My first impression on this bug was not so wrong, after all ;-) That also explains why we haven't seen it - it requires the user buffer to fill on the first entry of a backing buffer and so it is

Re: Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:17:30PM +0100, Damien Wyart wrote: * David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071219 11:45]: Can someone pass me a brown paper bag, please? My first impression on this bug was not so wrong, after all ;-) That also explains why we haven't seen it - it requires the user

Re: Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 03:30:31PM +0100, Damien Wyart wrote: > * David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071218 13:24]: > > Ok. I haven't noticed anything wrong with directories up to about > > 250,000 files in the last few days. The ls -l I just did on > > a directory with 15000 entries (btree

Re: Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

* David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071218 13:24]: > Ok. I haven't noticed anything wrong with directories up to about > 250,000 files in the last few days. The ls -l I just did on > a directory with 15000 entries (btree format) used about 5MB of RAM. > extent format directories appear to work

Re: Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 12:28:04PM +0100, Damien Wyart wrote: > Hello, > > As a follow-up to > (LKML seems down right now so I am not linking to it), I have detected an > important problem with these two patches: after applying them by hand >

Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

Hello, As a follow-up to (LKML seems down right now so I am not linking to it), I have detected an important problem with these two patches: after applying them by hand (downloaded them raw from SGI's gitweb) on top of 2.6.24-rc5-git5 (they

Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

Hello, As a follow-up to http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=119796120524618w=2 (LKML seems down right now so I am not linking to it), I have detected an important problem with these two patches: after applying them by hand (downloaded them raw from SGI's gitweb) on top of 2.6.24-rc5-git5 (they

Re: Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 12:28:04PM +0100, Damien Wyart wrote: Hello, As a follow-up to http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=119796120524618w=2 (LKML seems down right now so I am not linking to it), I have detected an important problem with these two patches: after applying them by hand

Re: Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

* David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071218 13:24]: Ok. I haven't noticed anything wrong with directories up to about 250,000 files in the last few days. The ls -l I just did on a directory with 15000 entries (btree format) used about 5MB of RAM. extent format directories appear to work fine as

Re: Important regression with XFS update for 2.6.24-rc6

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 03:30:31PM +0100, Damien Wyart wrote: * David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071218 13:24]: Ok. I haven't noticed anything wrong with directories up to about 250,000 files in the last few days. The ls -l I just did on a directory with 15000 entries (btree format) used