On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:18:55 +0100 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while booting up a notebook on 32 bit, this oopses appeared on the console
> after ext3 fsck:
> http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xslaby/sklad/mem_oops/
>
> It's 2.6.25-rc2-mm1, I can't find similar reports, is this known or
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:18:23 +0200 Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fs/ext3/xattr.c |4 +++-
> fs/ext3/xattr.h |7 ---
> fs/ext4/xattr.c |4 +++-
> fs/ext4/xattr.h |7 ---
one patch per fs, please.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-e
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:14:46 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The 2.6.25-rc2 kernel oopses while running dbench on ext3 filesystem
> mounted with mount -o data=writeback,nobh option on the x86_64 box
>
> BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:10:15 +0100
Marcin Slusarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fs/ext2/super.c |8 +++-
> fs/ext3/super.c |2 +-
> fs/ext4/super.c |2 +-
Please don't bundle the filesystem patches in this manner. I split
it into three patches.
Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 17:40:57 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9911
>
>Summary: fsync blocks concurrent writes to file
>Product: File System
>Version: 2.5
> KernelVersion: 2.6.23.8
> Platform: All
>
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:02:20 -0800 Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 13:26 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 10:00 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:15:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > &
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:44:54 +0100 Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 02:35:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:24:18 -0500
> > Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 0
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:24:18 -0500
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:15:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 20:36:26 -0500 Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 1
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:00:44 -0500 Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:15:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 20:36:26 -0500 Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 1
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 20:36:26 -0500 Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 12:25:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > When I merge David's iget coversion patches this will instead wreck the
> > ext4 patchset.
>
> That's ok, it sh
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:18:35 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The patch titled
> disable-ext4
> has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
> disable-ext4.patch
I dropped the entire ext4 patch series, because the newly-added
convert-to-iget_locked patch has wrecked the iget
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 07:25:09 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9866
>
>Summary: chattr sticky behaviour and Orlov block allocator
>Product: File System
>Version: 2.5
> KernelVersion: 2.6.22
> Platfo
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:17:57 -0800
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The buufer head pointer passed to journal_wait_on_commit_record()
> could be NULL if the previous journal_submit_commit_record() failed
> or journal has already aborted.
>
> We need to check the error returns from journa
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:29:27 -0800 (PST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9855
>
>Summary: ext3 ACL corruption
>Product: File System
>Version: 2.5
> KernelVersion: 2.6.23
> Platform: All
> OS/Version:
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:24:08 -0800 (PST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9849] New: NULL pointer deref in
journal_wait_on_commit_record
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9849
Summary: NULL pointer deref i
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:17:09 +0100 (CET) Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I checked ext3_ioctl and it looked largely safe to not be used
> without BKL. So convert it over to unlocked_ioctl.
>
> The only case where I wasn't quite sure was for the
> dynamic fs grow ioctls versus umountin
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:09:43 +0100 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Commit block is expected to have several copies of the header. Fix the
> bug Andrew has spotted ages ago.
>
"ages" indeed.
>
> diff --git a/fs/jbd/commit.c b/fs/jbd/commit.c
> index 610264b..a69b240 100644
> --- a/fs/
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:52:27 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> + * Returns zero on success and -EIO on error.If the input
> + * buffer is not locked returns -EINVAL
> + *
> + */
> +int bh_submit_read(struct buffer_head *bh)
> +{
> + if (!buffer_locked(bh))
> +
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:12:16 -0500 Abhishek Rai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm wondering about the interaction between this code and the
> > buffer_boundary() logic. I guess we should disable the buffer_boundary()
> > handling when this code is in effect. Have you reviewed and tested that
>
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:15 -0500 "Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The below patch add ioctl for migrating ext3 indirect block mapped inode
> to ext4 extent mapped inode.
This patch adds lots of weird and inexplicable single- and double-newlines
in inappropriate places. However it
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:09 -0500 "Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +int ext4_get_blocks_wrap(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, sector_t
> block,
> + unsigned long max_blocks, struct buffer_head *bh,
> + int create, int extend_disksize)
>
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:20 -0500 "Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Alex Tomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Tomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Eric S
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:03 -0500 "Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + if (bh_submit_read(bh) < 0) {
> + brelse(bh);
> + ext4_error(sb, __FUNCTION__,
> "Cannot read block bitmap - "
> - "block_group = %lu, bl
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:02 -0500 "Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(bh_uptodate_or_lock);
> +/**
Missing newline.
> + * bh_submit_read: Submit a locked buffer for reading
> + * @bh: struct buffer_head
> + *
> + * Returns a negative error
> + */
> +int bh_submit_r
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:12 -0500 "Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Girish Shilamkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The journal checksum feature adds two new flags i.e
> JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_ASYNC_COMMIT and JBD2_FEATURE_COMPAT_CHECKSUM.
>
> JBD2_FEATURE_CHECKSUM flag indicates that
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:39:26 +0100
Jonas Bonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This likely fixes the oops in __lock_acquire reported as:
>
> http://www.kerneloops.org/raw.php?rawid=2753&msgid=
> http://www.kerneloops.org/raw.php?rawid=2749&msgid=
>
> In these reported oopses, start_this_handle is re
I'm wondering about the real value of this change, really.
In any decent environment, people will fsck their ext3 filesystems during
planned downtime, and the benefit of reducing that downtime from 6
hours/machine to 2 hours/machine is probably fairly small, given that there
is no service interru
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:39:01 -0500
Abhishek Rai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the patch for 2.6.24-rc6 -mm tree, please let me know if anyone would
> like a patch against another recent kernel. Ingo Molnar has already posted a
> patch for 2.6.24-rc7.
>
Please always retain and maintain
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:52:15 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9692
>
>Summary: journal_data mount option causes filesystem corruption
> with blocksize != 4096
>Product: File System
>Version: 2.
fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
fs/ext4/mballoc.c:836: error: implicit declaration of function
'ext2_find_next_bit'
Can someone please get this fixed?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mor
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 00:31:56 +0900 Akinobu Mita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Use ext[234]_bg_has_super() to remove duplicate code.
Would prefer one patch per filesystem, please.
After fixing the rejects, I now have patches which affect ext2 and ext3
but which have a merging dependency upon ext4.
(switching to email - please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the
bugzilla web interface)
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:36:39 -0800 (PST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9546
>
>Summary: Huge latency in concurrent I/O when using data=ordered
>
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:45:17 -0800 (PST) David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:22:39 -0800
>
> > That's
> >
> > J_ASSERT_BH(bh, !buffer_jbddirty(bh));
> >
> >
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:20:28 +0100 Mariusz Kozlowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The box is sun ultra 60 (dual sparc64). This was caught when
> system (gentoo) was emerging some package.
>
> [27006.402237] kernel BUG at fs/jbd/transaction.c:1894!
That's
J_ASSERT_BH(bh, !buffer_jb
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:25:18 +0100
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ===
> > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > 2.6.24-rc3 #6
> > -
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:17:32 -0800
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for resending the patches. The first three patches in this series
> were missed in the ext4 patch queue, the rest of them are already queued
> there. They are all in ext4 patch queue now. I will check other ext4
>
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:00:20 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 09:14:44PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function `ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
> > fs/ext4/mballoc.c:836: err
fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function `ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
fs/ext4/mballoc.c:836: error: implicit declaration of function
`ext2_find_next_bit'
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:40:43 +0530
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Add buffer head related helper function
> bh_uptodate_or_lock and bh_submit_read
> which can be used by file system
>
The patches look sane.
> ---
> include/linux/buffer_head.h | 29 +++
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:47:40 -0500 Wendy Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:47:27 +0900 Hisashi Hifumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Currently fdatasync is identical to fsync i
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:47:27 +0900 Hisashi Hifumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Currently fdatasync is identical to fsync in ext3,4.
> I think fdatasync should skip journal flush in data=ordered and
> data=writeback mode
> because this syscall is not required to synchronize the metadata.
I suppos
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:41:03 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:55:05 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Also add gener
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:55:05 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also add generic_find_next_le_bit
>
> This gets used by the ext4 multi block allocator patches.
>
arm allmodconfig:
fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function `ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
fs/ext4/mballoc.c:836: error: implicit
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:42:10 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9329
>
>Summary: ext4: delalloc space accounting problem drops data
>Product: File System
>Version: 2.5
> KernelVersion: 2.6.24-rc1
>
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > There shouldn't have been conflicts here - if there were I wouldn't have
> > sent those patches. Unle
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >
> > Please pull from:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git
> > for_linus
>
> This conflicts in nontrivial ways with
>
>
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:15:08 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
> fs/Kconfig | 191 --
> fs/ext2/Kconfig | 55 +
> fs/ext3/Kconfig | 67
>
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:03:39 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > b) what happens when an old ext2 driver tries to read and/or write this
> >directory entry? Do we need a compat flag for it?
>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:18:49 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With 64KB blocksize, a directory entry can have size 64KB which does not fit
> into 16 bits we have for entry lenght. So we store 0x instead and convert
> value when read from / written to disk.
btw, this changes ext2's
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:18:49 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +static inline __le16 ext2_rec_len_to_disk(unsigned len)
> +{
> + if (len == (1 << 16))
> + return cpu_to_le16(EXT2_MAX_REC_LEN);
> + else if (len > (1 << 16))
> + BUG();
> + return cpu_to_
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:36:54 -0700
Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> More statfs() improvements for ext2. ext2 already maintains
> percpu counters for free blocks and inodes. Derive free
> block count and inode count by summing up percpu counters,
> instead of counting up all the gr
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:30:03 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu 04-10-07 16:11:21, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:40:44 -0600
> > Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Oct 04, 2007 13:12 -0700, Andrew Mo
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:40:44 -0600
Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 04, 2007 13:12 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:35:46 -0700
> > > ext2: Avoid rec_len overflow with 64KB block size
> > >
> > > into 16 bits we
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:35:46 -0700
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ext2: Avoid rec_len overflow with 64KB block size
>
> From: Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> With 64KB blocksize, a directory entry can have size 64KB which does not fit
> into 16 bits we have for entry lenght. So we st
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:59:26 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have updated the mballoc patches.
Has anyone reviewed this stuff? I don't see much evidence of it here?
Just a quick scan shows up heavy over-inlining, many
macros-which-should-be-functions and numerous needles
.
hm. I found rather a lot of issues. If this patch is derived from the
JBD2 patch then perhaps the JBD2 patch needs some looking at.
> > Signed-off-by: Jose R. Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You can add Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I suspect you might be ge
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:13:56 -0700
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Convert kmalloc to kzalloc() and get rid of the memset().
I split this into separate ext3/jbd and ext4/jbd2 patches. It's generally
better to raise separate patches, please - the ext3 patches I'll merge
directly but the
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:01:58 -0700
Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> I managed to reproduce the dbench problem. (not sure if its the same
> thing or not - but symptoms are same). My problem has nothing to do
> with ext3. I can produce it on ext2, jfs also.
>
> Whats hap
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:25:31 -0700
Avantika Mathur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In pass1 of e2fsck, every inode table in the fileystem is scanned and
> checked,
> regardless of whether it is in use. This is this the most time consuming
> part
> of the filesystem check. The unintialized block
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:22:09 -0700
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Convert the GFP_KERNEL flag used in JBD/JBD2 to GFP_NOFS, consistent
> with the rest of kmalloc flag used in the JBD/JBD2 layer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ---
> fs/jbd/journal.c |6 ++
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:25:31 -0700 Avantika Mathur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +
> +__u16 crc16(__u16 crc, __u8 const *buffer, size_t len)
And is we really really have to do this, then the ext4-private crc16()
should have static scope.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:25:31 -0700 Avantika Mathur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +#if !defined(CONFIG_CRC16)
> +/** CRC table for the CRC-16. The poly is 0x8005 (x16 + x15 + x2 + 1) */
> +__u16 const crc16_table[256] = {
> + 0x, 0xC0C1, 0xC181, 0x0140, 0xC301, 0x03C0, 0x0280, 0xC241,
> +
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:00:01 -0700 Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JBD: Replace slab allocations with page cache allocations
>
> JBD allocate memory for committed_data and frozen_data from slab. However
> JBD should not pass slab pages down to the block layer. Use page allocator
> page
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:21:40 -0500
Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > The do_split() function for htree dir blocks is intended to split a
> > leaf block to make room for a new entry. It sorts the entries in the
> > original block by hash value, then moves the last h
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:36:32 +0400 Alex Tomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Sort-of. But the per-superpblock, per-inode writeback code is pretty
> > careful to avoid livelocks. The per-inode writeback is a strict single
> > linear sweep across
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:24:47 +0400 Alex Tomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:20:06 +0400
> > Alex Tomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>>> But und
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:20:06 +0400
Alex Tomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> But under this proposal, t_sync_datalist just gets removed: the new
> >>> ordered-data mode _only_ need to do the sb->inode->page walk. So if I'm
&g
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 08:54:35 -0400 Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:15:01 -0700
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:54:03 -0400
> > Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:45:34 -0400
Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - rename something so that unconverted filesystems will reliably fail to
> > compile?
> >
> > - leave existing filesystems alone, but add a new
> > inode_operations.setattr_jeff, which the networked filesytems c
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:54:03 -0400
Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apologies for the resend, but the original sending had the date in the
> email header and it caused some of these to bounce...
>
> ( Please consider trimming the Cc list if discussing some aspect of this
> that doesn't con
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:49:14 -0700
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 20:24 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:30:36AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > Sigh, we HAVE a patch that was only adding delalloc to ext4, but it
> > > was rejected
define log2(n) flz(~(n))
> or
> #define log2(n) fls(n)
> or just use
> ilog2(n) defined in linux/log2.h.
>
> This patch follows the last solution, recommended by Andrew Morton.
>
> //Or are they simply the wrong naming, and is in fact correct
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:12:54 +0200
Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Could we have changelogs for these patches, please?
ie: what's wrong with the existing code, what change does this patch
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:00:03 +0200
Jörn Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 July 2007 22:01:48 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >
> > Yes. Note that ext2_clear_inode() is referenced from ext2_sops, so even
> > empty, it leaves traces in resulting kernel.
>
> Is that your opinion or have y
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:36:54 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More statfs() improvements for ext2. ext2 already maintains
> percpu counters for free blocks and inodes. Derive free
> block count and inode count by summing up percpu counters,
> instead of counting up all the group
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:21:03 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shows the current stacktrace where we violate the previously established
> locking order.
yup, but the lock_page() which we did inside truncate_mutex was a
lock_page() against a different address_space: the blockdev m
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:02:23 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:47 -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
>
> > Peter, do you have any interest in seeing how far we can get
> > at tracking lock_page()? I'm not holding my breath, but any little bit
> > would probably hel
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:33:41 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 02:05 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Except lockdep doesn't know about journal_start(), which has ranking
> > requirements similar to a semaphore.
>
>
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:00:48 +0530 Kalpak Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > - if (inode->i_nlink >= EXT4_LINK_MAX)
> > > + if (EXT4_DIR_LINK_MAX(inode))
> > > return -EMLINK;
> >
> > argh. WHY_IS_EXT4_FULL_OF_UPPER_CASE_MACROS_WHICH_COULD_BE_IMPLEMENTED
> > as_lower_case_in
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:32:47 -0700 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > + brelse(bh);
> > + up_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->xattr_sem);
> > + return error;
> > +}
> > +
>
> We're doing GFP_KERNEL memory allocations while hold
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:57:51 -0500 Dave Kleikamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 12:38 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >> +if (ext4_ext_check_header(inod
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 06:10:56 -0600 Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2007 16:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > err = ext4_reserve_inode_write(handle, inode, &iloc);
> > > + if (EXT4_I(inode)->i_extra_isize <
> > >
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:01:08 -0600 Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > - /* AKPM: buglet - add `i' to tmp! */
> > >
> > > Damn. After, what, seven years, someone actually fixed it?
> > >
> > > > for (i = 0; i < bh->b_size; i += 512) {
> > > > - journal_
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:18:50 -0400 Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 22:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:09:08 -0400 Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > David Chinneer pointed that w
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:38:09 -0500 "Jose R. Santos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alternatively (and preferably) do this via an update to
> > Documentation/filesystems/ext4.txt.
>
> Seems like I also need to update the doc on Kconfig as well. Do you
> prefer this in separate patches? (curren
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:38:59 -0400 Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Dmitry Monakhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: ext4: extent macros cleanup
>
> - Replace math equation to it's macro equivalent
s/it's/its/;)
> - make ext4_ext_grow_indepth() indexes/leaf correct
hm, what was wr
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:38:51 -0400 Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject: [EXT4 set 9][PATCH 4/5]Morecleanups:ext4_extent_compilation_fixes
> Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:38:51 -0400
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Organization: IBM Linux Technology Center
> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:38:25 -0400 Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Journal checksum feature has been added to detect corruption of journal.
That was brief. No description of what it does, how it does it, why it
does it, how one operates it, why (or why not) one would choose to enable
i
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:38:18 -0400 Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 17 17:21:08 2007
> Hi,
>
> I have rebased this patch to 2.6.22-rc1 so that it can be added to the
> ext4 patch queue. It has been tested by creating more than 65000 subdirs
> and then dele
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:05:27 +1000 Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It just occurred to me:
>
> If i_version is 64bit, then knfsd would need to be careful when
> reading it on a 32bit host. What are the locking rules?
>
> Presumably it is only updated under i_mutex protection, but
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:09:08 -0400 Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Chinneer pointed that we need to journal the version number
> updates together with the operations that causes the change of the inode
> version number, in order to survive server crashes so clients won't see
> the
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:21:49 -0400 "Cédric Augonnet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/7/10, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> > > + size = sizeof(struct transaction_stats_s);
> > > + s->stats
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:19:16 -0400 Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 18:22 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:09:40 -0400 Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, And
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:38:10 -0400 Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [PATCH] jbd2 stats through procfs
>
> The patch below updates the jbd stats patch to 2.6.20/jbd2.
> The initial patch was posted by Alex Tomas in December 2005
> (http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=113538565128617&w=2).
>
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:09:40 -0400 Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:37:04 -0400
> > Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > This patch converts the 32-
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:15:57 -0700
Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I looked at the problem now and here is the fix :)
whee, thanks.
> Greg, Please consider this for stable release also.
No, it is only relevant to -mm's ext2-reservations.patch.
-
To unsubscribe from this lis
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:38:01 -0400
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch is on top of the nanosecond timestamp and i_version_hi
> patches.
This sort of information isn't needed (or desired) when this patch hits the
git tree. Please ensure that things like this are cleaned up befo
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:37:53 -0400
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Add a "noversion" mount option to disable inode version updates.
Why is this option being offered to our users? To reduce disk traffic,
like noatime?
If so, what are the implications of this? What would the user lose?
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:37:45 -0400
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch is on top of i_version_update_vfs.
> The i_version field of the inode is set on inode creation and incremented when
> the inode is being modified.
>
Again, I don't think I've ever seen this patch before. It
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:37:36 -0400
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch adds 64-bit inode version support to ext4. The lower 32 bits
> are stored in the osd1.linux1.l_i_version field while the high 32 bits
> are stored in the i_version_hi field newly created in the ext4_inode.
So
1 - 100 of 240 matches
Mail list logo
