On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Guest section DW wrote:
> > Somebody had touched qnx/inode.c in 2.3.19
> > maybe they will show up and tell what is going on?
>
> That was me.
> I noticed that if one had qnx4 compiled into the kernel
> and did a mount without explicit -t option of some fs
> that came late
> Somebody had touched qnx/inode.c in 2.3.19
> maybe they will show up and tell what is going on?
That was me.
I noticed that if one had qnx4 compiled into the kernel
and did a mount without explicit -t option of some fs
that came later in the list then the system would crash.
In other words, al
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>As the fix I am proposing is only a bit more than a one liner, I think I
>can implement it. Of course if there is a better fix I won't want my
I implemented it. Here my simple fix against 2.3.20:
--- 2.3.20/fs/buffer.c Sun Oct 10 16:59:57 1999
+++
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> (re-directed to linux-fsdevel)
>
> Guest section DW wrote:
> >
> > > Both HFS and QNXFS has been in the kernel for quite some time,
> > > yet both are flagged Experimental.
> >
> > Just as well. At least qnx4 still contains bad bugs.
> > I have no in
David Weinehall wrote:
> Well, if we're to base the (EXPERIMENTAL) based on that it hasn't been
> rewritten for v2.3.x, several other filesystems should be marked...
There's your answer.
IMHO, even if an fs was bug-free in 2.2.x, lack of testing under the new
2.3.x VFS implies an experimental an
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> (re-directed to linux-fsdevel)
>
> Guest section DW wrote:
> >
> > > Both HFS and QNXFS has been in the kernel for quite some time,
> > > yet both are flagged Experimental.
> >
> > Just as well. At least qnx4 still contains bad bugs.
> > I have no info
(re-directed to linux-fsdevel)
Guest section DW wrote:
>
> > Both HFS and QNXFS has been in the kernel for quite some time,
> > yet both are flagged Experimental.
>
> Just as well. At least qnx4 still contains bad bugs.
> I have no information on hfs.
Someone (A. Viro?) posted recently to linu
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
> >Here goes quick'n'dirty patch. It does bforget(). It should prevent file
> >corruption.
>
> wrong patch. bforget give you no guarantee at all. bfoget always fallback
> to brelse if necessary.
>
> What
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>place for a better solution (like what Alexander Viro suggested).
Hmm I think I missed Alexanders' suggestion. I'll reread the thread.
Thanks.
>i dont understand what you mean - the hash table lookup stuff was in there
>originally, or are you suggesting
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> The current design bug in 2.3.20pre2 and previous has nothing to do with
> bforget.
>
> The right fix is to do a query on the hash every time you overlap a buffer
> on the page cache. [...]
this kind of kludge was in there originally - and it got r
10 matches
Mail list logo