On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 04:38:54PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 17:34 -0400, Sonny Rao wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 03:46:20PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > <snip> > > > SIGUSR1? Maybe it means something else on sparc64. Can you run > > > fsck.jfs under gdb to see where it traps? You'll need to give fsck.jfs > > > the device (/dev/vg00/lvol0), since fsck figures this out > > > from /etc/fstab and sends the device to the lower level command. > > > > > > I think there's something about sparc64 that jfs isn't handling > > > correctly. I've run a lot on ppc64, so I don't know what the difference > > > would be. > > > > Isn't the page size on sparc64 8k ? Have you done a lot of testing on > > fsck.jfs w/ page_size != 4k ? This is a fairly new feature still, > > IMO. > > We did a fairly good job of testing on ppc64, with a patch for larger > pages, but I haven't done any regression testing on recent patches. > Also, the page size would have no effect on fsck. > > Does sparc64 trap on memory accesses that are no word aligned?
Yep I think so -- or at least it is more strict about alignment than x86 or PPC64. Sonny ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
