Re: IFEF_MPSAFE

2017-11-16 Thread Ryota Ozaki
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

Re: ext2fs superblock updates

2017-11-16 Thread Warner Losh
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

Re: increase softint_bytes

2017-11-16 Thread Jaromír Doleček
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

Re: increase softint_bytes

2017-11-16 Thread Masanobu SAITOH
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

Re: increase softint_bytes

2017-11-16 Thread Masanobu SAITOH
://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

re: increase softint_bytes

2017-11-16 Thread matthew green
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

Re: ext2fs superblock updates

2017-11-16 Thread Mouse
>> 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

Re: ext2fs superblock updates

2017-11-16 Thread coypu
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

Re: ext2fs superblock updates

2017-11-16 Thread Mouse
>> 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

Re: ext2fs superblock updates

2017-11-16 Thread Radoslaw Kujawa
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

ext2fs superblock updates

2017-11-16 Thread coypu
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