On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> http://www.netbsd.org/~ozaki-r/IFEF_MPSAFE.diff
>>
>> I'm going to commit the above change that integrates
>> IFEF_OUTPUT_MPSAFE
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Mouse wrote:
> >> They are generated by _newfs_ and left untouched thereafter.
> > Interesting, thanks. what's so useful about the superblock at newfs
> > time?
>
> It contains enough information for fsck to find other critical
a lot of softints.
> > See:
> >
> > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2017/11/09/
> msg032581.html
> >
> > To avoid this panic, I wrote the following patch:
> >
> > http://www.netbsd.org/~msaitoh/softint-20171116-0.dif
> >
> &g
h:
>
> http://www.netbsd.org/~msaitoh/softint-20171116-0.dif
<http://www.netbsd.org/~msaitoh/softint-20171116-0.dif>
>
> Summary:
>
> - Increase the default size from 8192 bytes to 32768 bytes.
> - Add new option SOFTINT_B
://www.netbsd.org/~msaitoh/softint-20171116-0.dif
Summary:
- Increase the default size from 8192 bytes to 32768 bytes.
- Add new option SOFTINT_BYTES to change the value.
- Add two new read-only sysctls kern.softint.{max,count}
Any comment?
can't this be fixed by making
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
> Hi, all.
>
> Some device drivers now allocate a lot of softints.
> See:
>
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2017/11/09/msg032581.html
>
> To avoid this panic, I wrote the following patch:
>
> http://www.netbsd.o
>> They are generated by _newfs_ and left untouched thereafter.
> Interesting, thanks. what's so useful about the superblock at newfs
> time?
It contains enough information for fsck to find other critical things
(like cylinder groups and their inode tables). If the primary
superblock has been
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 09:54:44AM -0500, Mouse wrote:
> They are generated by _newfs_ and left untouched thereafter.
Interesting, thanks. what's so useful about the superblock at newfs
time? is that for disaster recovery when half my drive is gone and I
might be able to salvage something from a
>> From the looks of it, the ext2fs code only updates the primary
>> superblock: [...]
> [...similarity to FFS...]
I see two mistakes. ("I will proofread my list posts. I will
proofread my list posts. I will proofread my list posts. ...") I was
going to ignore the first one, but the other one
Hi.
> On 16 Nov 2017, at 10:40, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>
> From the looks of it, the ext2fs code only updates the primary
> superblock:
> (…)
> I'm under the impression that the secondary ones exist as
> backups and are meant to be usable.
>
> Is this wrong or am I misunderstanding things?
As
Hi folks.
>From the looks of it, the ext2fs code only updates the primary
superblock:
/*
* Write a superblock and associated information back to disk.
*/
int
ext2fs_sbupdate(struct ufsmount *mp, int waitfor)
{
struct m_ext2fs *fs = mp->um_e2fs;
struct buf *bp;
int error
11 matches
Mail list logo