2005/7/14, Nathan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 06:22:28PM +0300, Yura Pakhuchiy wrote:
I found patch by Greg Ungreger to fix this problem, but why it's still
not in mainline? Or it's a gcc problem and should be fixed by gcc folks?
Yes, IIRC the patch was incorrect for
2005/7/14, Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:50:01PM +0300, Yura Pakhuchiy wrote:
2005/7/14, Nathan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 06:22:28PM +0300, Yura Pakhuchiy wrote:
I found patch by Greg Ungreger to fix this problem, but why it's
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 05:45:15PM +0300, Yura Pakhuchiy wrote:
Yes, but a lof of people use older versions of compilers and suffer
from this bug.
I personally was very unhappy when lost my data.
then host the patch somewhere and make sure to apply it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
2005/7/8, Nathan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:15:52PM +0300, Yura Pakhuchiy wrote:
Hi,
I'm creadted XFS volume on 2.6.10 linux xscale/iq31244 box, then I
copyied files on it and moved this hard drive to i686 machine. When I
mounted it on i686, I found no files on
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 06:22:28PM +0300, Yura Pakhuchiy wrote:
I found patch by Greg Ungreger to fix this problem, but why it's still
not in mainline? Or it's a gcc problem and should be fixed by gcc folks?
Yes, IIRC the patch was incorrect for other platforms, and it sure
looked like an
Hi,
I'm creadted XFS volume on 2.6.10 linux xscale/iq31244 box, then I
copyied files on it and moved this hard drive to i686 machine. When I
mounted it on i686, I found no files on it. I runned xfs_check, here is
output:
pc299:/home/yura# xfs_check /dev/sda5
dir 128 size is 31, should be 13
dir
