On Jan 16, 2008 9:15 AM, Martin Knoblauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fengguang's latest writeback patch applies cleanly, builds, boots on
2.6.24-rc8.
Linus, if possible, I'd suggest this patch be merged for 2.6.24.
It's a safer version of the reverted patch. It was tested on
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow
start = start bsbits;
Hi Aneesh,
your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also
loff_t, start_off = ac-ac_o_ex.fe_logical bsbits also overflows.
I guess start should be of type loff_t. Patch
Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly
exposing BKL's uses.
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext2/dir.c |2 +-
fs/ext2/ext2.h |3 +-
fs/ext2/file.c |4 +-
fs/ext2/ioctl.c | 101 +-
4
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/dir.c |2 +-
fs/ext4/file.c |2 +-
fs/ext4/ioctl.c | 159 ---
include/linux/ext4_fs.h |3 +-
4 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
diff
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext3/dir.c |2 +-
fs/ext3/file.c |2 +-
fs/ext3/ioctl.c | 159 --
include/linux/ext3_fs.h |3 +-
4 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
diff
On Jan 15, 2008 23:25 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got multiple boxes across the hall that have 50T of disk on them, in one
case as one large filesystem, and the users want *more* *bigger* still (damned
researchers - you put a 15 teraflop supercomputer in the room, and then they
want
On Thursday 17 January 2008, you wrote:
Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly
exposing BKL's uses.
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You are now calling lock_kernel() twice in case of ext2_compat_ioctl(),
which calls back into ext2_ioctl with the BKL
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start bsbits;
Hi Aneesh,
your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also
loff_t, start_off = ac-ac_o_ex.fe_logical bsbits
Vous m'avez dit récemment :
On Thursday 17 January 2008, you wrote:
Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly
exposing BKL's uses.
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You are now calling lock_kernel() twice in case of ext2_compat_ioctl(),
which calls back
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start bsbits;
Hi Aneesh,
your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also
loff_t, start_off = ac-ac_o_ex.fe_logical bsbits
Vous m'avez dit récemment :
Vous m'avez dit récemment :
On Thursday 17 January 2008, you wrote:
Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly
exposing BKL's uses.
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You are now calling lock_kernel() twice in case of
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext3/dir.c |2 +-
fs/ext3/file.c |2 +-
fs/ext3/ioctl.c | 161 ---
include/linux/ext3_fs.h |3 +-
4 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
diff
On Jan 15, 2008 10:28 AM, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, it's not just reducing fsck times, although that's the main one.
The last time this was suggested, the rationale was to speed up the
rm dvd.iso case. Also, something which *could* be done, if Abhishek
wants to pursue it,
Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly
exposing BKL's uses.
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext2/dir.c |2 +-
fs/ext2/ext2.h |3 +-
fs/ext2/file.c |4 +-
fs/ext2/ioctl.c | 103 +--
4
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/dir.c |2 +-
fs/ext4/file.c |2 +-
fs/ext4/ioctl.c | 161 ---
include/linux/ext4_fs.h |3 +-
4 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
diff
- Original Message
From: Fengguang Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Martin Knoblauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Mike Snitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
On Jan 17, 2008 8:52 AM, Martin Knoblauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message
From: Fengguang Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Martin Knoblauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Mike Snitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ingo Molnar [EMAIL
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:09:41PM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start bsbits;
Hi Aneesh,
your patch below doesn't fix the
- Original Message
From: Martin Knoblauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Fengguang Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Mike Snitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Ported from JBD changes from Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:21:26 + (-0800)
Subject: [PATCH] user of the jiffies rounding code: JBD
X-Git-Tag: v2.6.20-rc1~15^2~43
X-Git-Url:
Hi Andrew, Ted,
I walked through the linus's git tree history and found 4 patches should
port from ext3/jbd to ext4/jbd2, since the day ext4 was forked
(2006.10.11) to today. I have already queued the ported patches in ext4
patch queue and verified they seems fine. Here is the first one.
jbd2:
Ported from upstream jbd changes to jbd2
sparse pointer use of zero as null
Get rid of sparse related warnings from places that use integer as NULL
pointer.
Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/jbd2/transaction.c | 12 ++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6
- Original Message
From: Mel Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Martin Knoblauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Fengguang Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mike Snitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Peter
Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ingo Molnar [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Vous m'avez dit récemment :
--- a/fs/ext3/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/ext3/ioctl.c
@@ -17,12 +17,19 @@
#include linux/smp_lock.h
#include asm/uaccess.h
-int ext3_ioctl (struct inode * inode, struct file * filp, unsigned int cmd,
+long ext3_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
Vous m'avez dit récemment :
as well for this one,
--- a/fs/ext4/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/ioctl.c
@@ -17,12 +17,18 @@
#include linux/smp_lock.h
#include asm/uaccess.h
-int ext4_ioctl (struct inode * inode, struct file * filp, unsigned int cmd,
- unsigned long arg)
+long
On (17/01/08 13:50), Martin Knoblauch didst pronounce:
mail manglement snipped
The effect is defintely depending on the IO hardware. I performed the
same tests
on a different box with an AACRAID controller and there things look different.
I take it different also means it does not
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:30:43PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
Hi y'all,
This is a request for comments on the rewrite of the e2fsck IO
parallelization patches I sent out a few months ago. The mechanism is
totally different. Previously IO was parallelized by issuing IOs from
multiple
27 matches
Mail list logo
