Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just got a warning message with 2.6.18-rc3 that I've never seen before :
ReiserFS: sda4: warning: vs-8115: get_num_ver: not directory or indirect
item
I already often saw them with 2.6.16 on multiple machines. Never
tracked down what the problem
Chris Wedgwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If caching is enabled I still lose data. Linux does have a concept of
write barriers but these are presently not implemented for XFS right
now.
I implemented them some time ago for log writes in XFS. Not for fsync though,
although fsync usually does a
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:37:11PM +0400, Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
have neither prof.[ch], nor spinprof.[ch] and we removed already some
debugging code from spin_macros.h.
Yes, i was looking at some older tree with reiser4. Sorry, just
ignore what is already done.
But still spin_macros.h
On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 21:32 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
That said, I don't like the reiser name-number style. If you must do
something like this, mark responsibility by using a named identifier
covering the layer in question instead.
assert(trace_hash-89, is_hashed(foo) !=
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:49:19AM +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 09:28 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
You can just dump the expression (with #argument). That is what
traditional userspace assert did forever.
It won't help for BUG_ON(a || b || c || d || e
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 03:27:50PM +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
It won't work for me because it'll bloat the kernel .text
considerable. There is a reason why BUG is implemented
like it is. Compare it.
The assertion codes bloat the kernel all
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* metafiles should be disabled until we can present code that works
right. Half the list thinks we cannot solve the cycles problem ever.
Disable metafiles and postpone problem until working code, or the
failure to produce it, makes it possible to do
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 06:38:07PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
V4 has a mailing list, and a large number of testers who read the code
and comment on it. V4 has been reviewed and tested much more than V3
was before merging. Given that we sent it in quite some time ago, your
suggestion that an
Amazing. You managed to write all this without ever mentioning
that linux 2.6 already has per process name spaces (=views) in
form of CLONE_NS.
-Andi
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 06:25:33PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Amazing. You managed to write all this without ever mentioning
that linux 2.6 already has per process name spaces (=views) in
form of CLONE_NS.
-Andi
Can you specify exclude *.c in them? I think that your
10 matches
Mail list logo
