Re: HFS, QNXFS

1999-10-10 Thread Alexander Viro
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

Re: HFS, QNXFS

1999-10-10 Thread Guest section DW
> 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

[patch] 2.3.20 simple fs-corruption fix [Re: [patch] [possible racein ext2] Re: how to write get_block?]

1999-10-10 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
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 +++

Re: HFS, QNXFS

1999-10-10 Thread Alexander Viro
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

Re: HFS, QNXFS

1999-10-10 Thread Jeff Garzik
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

Re: HFS, QNXFS

1999-10-10 Thread David Weinehall
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: HFS, QNXFS

1999-10-10 Thread Jeff Garzik
(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

Re: [patch] [possible race in ext2] Re: how to write get_block?

1999-10-10 Thread Mikulas Patocka
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

Re: [patch] [possible race in ext2] Re: how to write get_block?

1999-10-10 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
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

Re: [patch] [possible race in ext2] Re: how to write get_block?

1999-10-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
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