I just tripped over this in a fresh checkout of the xcpu2 code from
sourceforge, whose responsible for comiting the patch now that its
ack'd.
-eric
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Latchesar Ionkov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Acked-by: Latchesar Ionkov <[email protected]>
>
> On Mar 15, 2009, at 11:30 PM, Abhishek Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> That patch got buried in the queue somewhere. Should I take this as an
>> ack?
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I haven't seen the problem since I patched and that includes a demo, so
>> it's passed a murphy's law barrier as well.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Latchesar Ionkov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do you still see problems with that change?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lucho
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2009, at 4:07 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
>>
>> That does seem much more stable...
>>
>> -eric
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Abhishek Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone else see anything like this? Looks like random corruption
>> somewhere in the control stream between xrx and xcpufs....
>>
>> [r...@arlx050 ~]# sphinx/xcpu2/utils/xrx 9.3.61.111 /bin/date
>> Thu Mar 12 10:48:33 CDT 2009
>> [r...@arlx050 ~]# sphinx/xcpu2/utils/xrx 9.3.61.111 /bin/date
>> namespace: invalid operation 9Of~
>> xnamespace failed: : No child processes
>> [r...@arlx050 ~]# sphinx/xcpu2/utils/xrx 9.3.61.111 /bin/date
>> namespace: invalid operation #9PhA
>> xnamespace failed: : No child processes
>> [r...@arlx050 ~]# sphinx/xcpu2/utils/xrx 9.3.61.111 /bin/date
>> namespace: invalid operation Î0A
>> xnamespace failed: : No child processes
>> [r...@arlx050 ~]# sphinx/xcpu2/utils/xrx 9.3.61.111 /bin/date
>> namespace: invalid operation w§ºQ
>> xnamespace failed: : No child processes
>> [r...@arlx050 ~]# sphinx/xcpu2/utils/xrx 9.3.61.111 /bin/date
>> Thu Mar 12 10:48:44 CDT 2009
>>
>>
>> I can't reproduce this anymore. But does the following patch from
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00068.html
>> fix the issue for you?
>>
>> Index: xcpufs/xcpufs.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- xcpufs/xcpufs.c (revision 691)
>> +++ xcpufs/xcpufs.c (working copy)
>> @@ -1332,7 +1332,7 @@
>> s = p;
>> }
>> - bufwrite(&buf, buf.size, strlen(s), s);
>> + bufwrite(&buf, buf.size, (slen + str - s), s);
>> b = 0;
>> bufwrite(&buf, buf.size, 1, &b);
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
