Erik Mouw wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:53:45AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
No, reiserfs does have badblock support
You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was
written after code freeze.
IMHO we are not that deep into code freeze anymore. Freevxfs got
Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 22:10, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Peter Braam writes:
File system journal recovery can corrupt a snapshot, because it
copies data that needs to be preserved in a snapshot. During
journal replay such data may be copied again, but the source
monkeyiq wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Could I please be CC'd replies.
>
> To keep it short and sweet, I have a 45Gb IBM drive that
> is slowly dying by getting more bad sectors. I have already
> returned my first one to get the current disk, so would like
> to use the current one for a while before
monkeyiq wrote:
Hi,
Could I please be CC'd replies.
To keep it short and sweet, I have a 45Gb IBM drive that
is slowly dying by getting more bad sectors. I have already
returned my first one to get the current disk, so would like
to use the current one for a while before returning
Ricardo Galli wrote:
> I was equally suprised, not only due to the wall-clock time but also to the
> CPU. So, I think the cache is the major player when compiling a kernel that
> was _just_ copied from another file system (still in buffer/cache).
You might consider rebooting to flush the cache.
My apologies, I meant that the make is probably compiler bound (I said CPU
bound) not FS bound.
We find that one must use cp and similar utilities (not compilers) to become FS
bound when using a Linux FS (unlike the older Unixes for which compiles were
considered excellent benchmarks).
Hans
My apologies, I meant that the make is probably compiler bound (I said CPU
bound) not FS bound.
We find that one must use cp and similar utilities (not compilers) to become FS
bound when using a Linux FS (unlike the older Unixes for which compiles were
considered excellent benchmarks).
Hans
Ricardo Galli wrote:
I was equally suprised, not only due to the wall-clock time but also to the
CPU. So, I think the cache is the major player when compiling a kernel that
was _just_ copied from another file system (still in buffer/cache).
You might consider rebooting to flush the cache.
Ricardo Galli wrote:
>
> Hi,
> you can find at http://bulma.lug.net/static/ a few new benchmarks among
> Reiser, XFS and Ext2 (also one with JFS).
>
> This time there is a comprehensive Hans' Mongo benchmarks
> (http://bulma.lug.net/static/mongo/ )and a couple of kernel compilations and
Ricardo Galli wrote:
Hi,
you can find at http://bulma.lug.net/static/ a few new benchmarks among
Reiser, XFS and Ext2 (also one with JFS).
This time there is a comprehensive Hans' Mongo benchmarks
(http://bulma.lug.net/static/mongo/ )and a couple of kernel compilations and
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> Or you can fall back to mounting by UUID, which is globally
> unique and still avoids referencing physical location. You also
> don't need to manually set LABELs for UUID to work: all e2fsprogs
> over the past couple of years have set UUID on
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
Or you can fall back to mounting by UUID, which is globally
unique and still avoids referencing physical location. You also
don't need to manually set LABELs for UUID to work: all e2fsprogs
over the past couple of years have set UUID on partitions, and
the users different advantages.
Hans
"Yury Yu. Rupasov" wrote:
>
> "Yury Yu. Rupasov" wrote:
> >
> > Hans Reiser wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrey Tulenev wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello reiserfs-list,
> > > >
> > >
Samium Gromoff wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I`m still experiencing file tail corruptions
> on subj.
> And more: after i had restored bblocked patrition
> (by relying on drive`s ability to remap bblks on
> write by wroting small modification of debugreiserfs
> which zeroified
Samium Gromoff wrote:
Hello,
I`m still experiencing file tail corruptions
on subj.
And more: after i had restored bblocked patrition
(by relying on drive`s ability to remap bblks on
write by wroting small modification of debugreiserfs
which zeroified all
the users different advantages.
Hans
Yury Yu. Rupasov wrote:
Yury Yu. Rupasov wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Andrey Tulenev wrote:
Hello reiserfs-list,
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0105.1/0358.html
http://bulma.lug.net/body.phtml?nIdNoticia=626
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
> Hans Reiser writes:
>
> > Tell us what to code for, and so long as it doesn't involve looking
> > up files by their 32 bit inode numbers we'll probably be happy to
> > code to it. The Neil Brown stuff is already coded for thou
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
Hans Reiser writes:
Tell us what to code for, and so long as it doesn't involve looking
up files by their 32 bit inode numbers we'll probably be happy to
code to it. The Neil Brown stuff is already coded for though.
Next time around, when you update
Alan Cox wrote:
> > Are you referring to Neil Brown's nfs operations patch as being as ugly as
> > hell, or something else? Just want to understand what you are saying before
> > arguing.
>
> Andi has sent me some stuff to look at. He listed four implementations and I've
> only seen two of
Alan Cox wrote:
> > I think with the growing acceptance of ReiserFS in the Linux
> > community, it is tiresome to have to apply a patch again and again
> > just to get working NFS. 2.2 NFS horrors all over again.
>
> The zero copy patches were basically self contained and tested for 6 months.
>
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" wrote:
> Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >It requires explicit changes to each filesystem that wants to work over
> >NFS, and is a somewhat large change.
>
> Come on, we got zerocopy TCP pushed into a stable kernel release with
> the words "get over it".
>
Tony Hoyle wrote:
> Matthias Andree wrote:
>
> > You're not getting data loss, but access denied, when hitting
> > incompatibilities, and it looks like it hits 2.2 hard while 2.4 is less
> > of a problem. Please search the reiserfs list archives for details.
> > vs-13048 is a good search term, I
Tony Hoyle wrote:
Matthias Andree wrote:
You're not getting data loss, but access denied, when hitting
incompatibilities, and it looks like it hits 2.2 hard while 2.4 is less
of a problem. Please search the reiserfs list archives for details.
vs-13048 is a good search term, I believe.
Alan Cox wrote:
I think with the growing acceptance of ReiserFS in the Linux
community, it is tiresome to have to apply a patch again and again
just to get working NFS. 2.2 NFS horrors all over again.
The zero copy patches were basically self contained and tested for 6 months.
The
Alan Cox wrote:
Are you referring to Neil Brown's nfs operations patch as being as ugly as
hell, or something else? Just want to understand what you are saying before
arguing.
Andi has sent me some stuff to look at. He listed four implementations and I've
only seen two of them
did
Tony Hoyle wrote:
> Matthias Andree wrote:
>
> > ext3fs has never given me any problems, but I did not have it in
> > production use where I discovered major ReiserFS <-> kNFSd
> > incompatibilities. ext3 has a 0.0.x version number which suggests it's
> > not meant for production use.
>
> Hmm...
Matthias Andree wrote:
>
> If you're deploying a cache partition such as /var/squid (possibly
> having log files in another /var/log partition on another disk drive),
> what's the point about not running (e. g.) mke2fs and squid -z on boot,
> as well as mounting the system partitions (/usr)
I would encourage all of you to consider using a fractal fileset generator such as
reiserfs_fract_tree.c such as we use for mongo.pl which we use for internal
benchmarking. You can get a copy at www.namesys.com in the benchmarking section,
and then tune it as suits your needs. I think that one
I would encourage all of you to consider using a fractal fileset generator such as
reiserfs_fract_tree.c such as we use for mongo.pl which we use for internal
benchmarking. You can get a copy at www.namesys.com in the benchmarking section,
and then tune it as suits your needs. I think that one
Matthias Andree wrote:
If you're deploying a cache partition such as /var/squid (possibly
having log files in another /var/log partition on another disk drive),
what's the point about not running (e. g.) mke2fs and squid -z on boot,
as well as mounting the system partitions (/usr)
Tony Hoyle wrote:
Matthias Andree wrote:
ext3fs has never given me any problems, but I did not have it in
production use where I discovered major ReiserFS - kNFSd
incompatibilities. ext3 has a 0.0.x version number which suggests it's
not meant for production use.
Hmm... Reiserfs is
Steve Lord wrote:
> >
> > XFS is very fast most of the time (deleting a file is so slow its like us
> > ing
> > old BSD systems). Im not familiar enough with its behaviour under Linux yet.
>
> Hmm, I just removed 2.2 Gbytes of data in 3 files in 37 seconds (14.4
> seconds system time),
Daniel Podlejski wrote:
> In linux-kernel, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : We are waiting for a server with dual PIII, RAID 1,0 and 5 18Gb scsi disks to
> : come so we can change our proxy server, that will run on Linux with Squid.
> : One disk will go inside (I think?) and the other 4 on a
Alan Cox wrote:
> > that reiserfs has had lots of bugs, and is marked as experimental in kernel
> > 2.4.4. Not to mention that the people of RH discourage there users from using
> > it.
>
> At the time Red Hat 7.1 was mastered Reiserfs was not stable. The reiserfs in
> the RH kernel has some of
Steve Lord wrote:
XFS is very fast most of the time (deleting a file is so slow its like us
ing
old BSD systems). Im not familiar enough with its behaviour under Linux yet.
Hmm, I just removed 2.2 Gbytes of data in 3 files in 37 seconds (14.4
seconds system time), not tooo
Alan Cox wrote:
that reiserfs has had lots of bugs, and is marked as experimental in kernel
2.4.4. Not to mention that the people of RH discourage there users from using
it.
At the time Red Hat 7.1 was mastered Reiserfs was not stable. The reiserfs in
the RH kernel has some of the tail
Daniel Podlejski wrote:
In linux-kernel, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: We are waiting for a server with dual PIII, RAID 1,0 and 5 18Gb scsi disks to
: come so we can change our proxy server, that will run on Linux with Squid.
: One disk will go inside (I think?) and the other 4 on a tower
Dirk Mueller wrote:
>
> Now consider a good amount of fragmentation because those files get created
> over time (weeks, months etc). and you quickly degenerade to a scanning
> speed of maybe 10-20 files per second (Athlon 800, IBM 60GB HD with roughly
> 35MB/s linear read). It was that horrible
Bug reports that are hardware failures masquerading as reiserfs bugs
dominate our mailing list. We also get bug reports from users with
versions that are prior to 2.4.4. We are now working on making the code
more likely to identify a hardware failure as a hardware failure
(without killing
Bug reports that are hardware failures masquerading as reiserfs bugs
dominate our mailing list. We also get bug reports from users with
versions that are prior to 2.4.4. We are now working on making the code
more likely to identify a hardware failure as a hardware failure
(without killing
Dirk Mueller wrote:
Now consider a good amount of fragmentation because those files get created
over time (weeks, months etc). and you quickly degenerade to a scanning
speed of maybe 10-20 files per second (Athlon 800, IBM 60GB HD with roughly
35MB/s linear read). It was that horrible that
monstr will debug this and elena will enter it into our buglist file.
Hans
Rasmus Bøg Hansen wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I am getting musch the same types of corruption. I am on a K6-2 with a
> 30Gb IBM HD and 256Mb RAM running vanilla 2.4.3 with iptables and squid
> caching proxy. The problems
monstr will debug this and elena will enter it into our buglist file.
Hans
Rasmus Bøg Hansen wrote:
Hello
I am getting musch the same types of corruption. I am on a K6-2 with a
30Gb IBM HD and 256Mb RAM running vanilla 2.4.3 with iptables and squid
caching proxy. The problems arise on
David, did you determine if it was a memory bug?
Just to note: stack trace doesn't involve reiserfs at all. Other people
suggested that it may me memory bug.
Nikita.
Hans Reiser writes:
> Who is taking this one?
>
> HansReturn-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To
David, did you determine if it was a memory bug?
Just to note: stack trace doesn't involve reiserfs at all. Other people
suggested that it may me memory bug.
Nikita.
Hans Reiser writes:
Who is taking this one?
HansReturn-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >
> > This is indeed what we should do if we get no answer from the list by someone
> > who has already done such work.
> >
>
> Hans,
>
> exactly what you want to measure? I hav
James Lewis Nance wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:26:20AM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
> > implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
> >
> > They know that iMimic's polymix performan
Nathan Dabney wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
> > 2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to strongly disparage Linux
> > networking co
et frames). the best number we got with 2.2
> was about 650 with jumbos and 550 with standard.
>
> i'd recommend it's networking performance to anyone.
>
> todd underwood
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 01
Nathan Dabney wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:03:31PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
The problem is that I really need BSD vs. Linux experiences, not Linux 2.4 vs.
2.2 experiences, because the webcache industry tends to strongly disparage Linux
networking code, so much better isn't
James Lewis Nance wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:26:20AM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
This is indeed what we should do if we get no answer from the list by someone
who has already done such work.
Hans,
exactly what you want to measure? I have UP, 2way-SMP and 4way-SMP
machines all of which have
I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
Can I tell them not to worry about the
I have a client that wants to implement a webcache, but is very leery of
implementing it on Linux rather than BSD.
They know that iMimic's polymix performance on Linux 2.2.* is half what it is on
BSD. Has the Linux 2.4 networking code caught up to BSD?
Can I tell them not to worry about the
Chris Mason wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 12, 2001 11:42:38 PM +0300 Hans Reiser
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> Do you know if the people reporting the corruption with reiserfs on
> >> 2.4 were using IDE drives with
Chris Mason wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 12, 2001 11:42:38 PM +0300 Hans Reiser
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> Do you know if the people reporting the corruption with reiserfs on
> >> 2.4 were using IDE drives with
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> > Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, Feb
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:00:11 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel Stone wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
>
> Hans Reiser writes:
> > Alan Cox wrote:
> >> [Ablert Cahalan]
>
> >>> In an __init function, have some code that will trigger the bug.
> >>> This can be used to disable Reiserfs if the compiler was bad.
&
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
Hans Reiser writes:
Alan Cox wrote:
[Ablert Cahalan]
In an __init function, have some code that will trigger the bug.
This can be used to disable Reiserfs if the compiler was bad.
Then the admin gets a printk() and the Reiserfs mount fails.
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
On Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:00:11 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Stone wrote:
On 11 Feb 2001 02:02:00 +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +1100, Daniel
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
On Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:00:11 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Stone wrote:
On 11 Feb 2001
Chris Mason wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2001 11:42:38 PM +0300 Hans Reiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris,
Do you know if the people reporting the corruption with reiserfs on
2.4 were using IDE drives with PIO mode and IDE multicount turned on?
If so, it may be caused
Chris Mason wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2001 11:42:38 PM +0300 Hans Reiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris,
Do you know if the people reporting the corruption with reiserfs on
2.4 were using IDE drives with PIO mode and IDE multicount turned on?
If so, it may be caused
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > LADDIS is the industry standard benchmark for NFS. It crashes for ReiserFS and
> > NFS. We can't afford to buy it, as it is proprietary software. Once Nikita has
> > finished testing his changes, we will ask someone to test it for us though.
> >
>
> Do you know if the
Adrian Phillips wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Hans" == Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hans> Adrian Phillips wrote:
> >> Does your test procedure include other systems, for example
> >> reiserfs plus NFS ?
>
Adrian Phillips wrote:
>
> Does your test procedure include other systems, for example reiserfs
> plus NFS ?
Our NFS testing is simply inadequate, we need a copy of LADDIS but haven't found
the money for it yet.
Hans
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Alan Cox wrote:
> Before you put that down to reiserfs can you chek 2.4.2-pre2. It may be
> problems below the reiserfs layer
I forgot, this bug exists on reiserfs for Linux 2.2.*, so it isn't going to be
fixed by 2.4.2 (assuming that the bug is not in 2.2.*).
Hans
-
To unsubscribe from this
David Ford wrote:
>
> Alan Cox wrote:
>
> >> I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy corrupting my
> >> mbox'es randomly.
> >> Using the old-style Reiser FS format, 2.4.2-pre1, Evolution, on a CMD640
> >> chipset with the fixes enabled.
> >> This also occurs in some log files, but
David Ford wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy corrupting my
mbox'es randomly.
Using the old-style Reiser FS format, 2.4.2-pre1, Evolution, on a CMD640
chipset with the fixes enabled.
This also occurs in some log files, but I put it down to
Alan Cox wrote:
Before you put that down to reiserfs can you chek 2.4.2-pre2. It may be
problems below the reiserfs layer
I forgot, this bug exists on reiserfs for Linux 2.2.*, so it isn't going to be
fixed by 2.4.2 (assuming that the bug is not in 2.2.*).
Hans
-
To unsubscribe from this
Adrian Phillips wrote:
Does your test procedure include other systems, for example reiserfs
plus NFS ?
Our NFS testing is simply inadequate, we need a copy of LADDIS but haven't found
the money for it yet.
Hans
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
Adrian Phillips wrote:
"Hans" == Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hans Adrian Phillips wrote:
Does your test procedure include other systems, for example
reiserfs plus NFS ?
Hans Our NFS testing is simply inadequate, we need a copy of
H
Alan Cox wrote:
LADDIS is the industry standard benchmark for NFS. It crashes for ReiserFS and
NFS. We can't afford to buy it, as it is proprietary software. Once Nikita has
finished testing his changes, we will ask someone to test it for us though.
Do you know if the connectathon
Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> On 11 Feb 2001 02:02:00 +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >
> > I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy corrupting my
> > mbox'es randomly.
> >
> > what kind of corruption are you seeing?
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy corrupting my
> mbox'es randomly.
>
> what kind of corruption are you seeing?
>
> This also occurs in some log files, but I put it down
Daniel Stone wrote:
On 11 Feb 2001 02:02:00 +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy corrupting my
mbox'es randomly.
what kind of corruption are you seeing?
Zeroed
I know that our number of users has increased, but I doubt that the increase is
sufficient to match the marked increase in bug reports on reiserfs-list. Please
be patient as we work on this. We will issue a patch this week that will fix
some bugs (NFS i_generation count losing, and space
I know that our number of users has increased, but I doubt that the increase is
sufficient to match the marked increase in bug reports on reiserfs-list. Please
be patient as we work on this. We will issue a patch this week that will fix
some bugs (NFS i_generation count losing, and space
Wenzhuo Zhang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I got the VM error "VM: do_try_to_free_pages failed for mongo_read..."
> and then I couldn't log into the system, when stress testing
> reiserfs+raid0 setup on a 2.2.18 box using the reiserfs benchmark
> mongo.sh. The problem was reporduceable on each run of
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > I was thinking boot time.
> > and if reiserfs is the root partition? You really want to make them reboot to
> > the old kernel and recompile rather than making them just recompile?
>
> I want to make sure they get a sane clear message telling them where to
> find the
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Thats actually quite doable. I'll see about dropping the test into -ac that
> > > way.
> > NO!! It should NOT fail at mount time, it should fail at compile time.
>
> I was thinking boot time.
and if reiserfs is the root partition? You really want to make them
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > No. There are *many* other compilers out there which are much *more* broken
> > then anything RedHat has recently shipped. Unfortunatly, there is no easy
> > way to accuratly test for such bugs (because once they can be boiled down to
> > a simple test they are very rapidly
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > In an __init function, have some code that will trigger the bug.
> > This can be used to disable Reiserfs if the compiler was bad.
> > Then the admin gets a printk() and the Reiserfs mount fails.
>
> Thats actually quite doable. I'll see about dropping the test into -ac
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > administrator that has worked in large multi hundred million dollar compani=
> > es where 1 hour of downtime =3D=3D $75,000 in lost income proactive prevent=
> > ion IS the right answer. If the gcc people need to compile with the .96 rh =
> > version then they can apply a
Alan Cox wrote:
administrator that has worked in large multi hundred million dollar compani=
es where 1 hour of downtime =3D=3D $75,000 in lost income proactive prevent=
ion IS the right answer. If the gcc people need to compile with the .96 rh =
version then they can apply a removal
Alan Cox wrote:
In an __init function, have some code that will trigger the bug.
This can be used to disable Reiserfs if the compiler was bad.
Then the admin gets a printk() and the Reiserfs mount fails.
Thats actually quite doable. I'll see about dropping the test into -ac that
way.
Alan Cox wrote:
No. There are *many* other compilers out there which are much *more* broken
then anything RedHat has recently shipped. Unfortunatly, there is no easy
way to accuratly test for such bugs (because once they can be boiled down to
a simple test they are very rapidly fixed,
Alan Cox wrote:
Thats actually quite doable. I'll see about dropping the test into -ac that
way.
NO!! It should NOT fail at mount time, it should fail at compile time.
I was thinking boot time.
and if reiserfs is the root partition? You really want to make them reboot to
the
Alan Cox wrote:
I was thinking boot time.
and if reiserfs is the root partition? You really want to make them reboot to
the old kernel and recompile rather than making them just recompile?
I want to make sure they get a sane clear message telling them where to
find the correct
uot; wrote:
>
> On 02.02 Hans Reiser wrote:
> > Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Run a small shell check and let it fail if the shell stuff errors.
> > >
> > > The fragment you want is
> > >
> > > if [ -e /bin/rpm ]; then
> > > X=`rpm -q gcc
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > their kernel, something putting #ifdefs all over it will mean they have to
> > > mess around to fix too.
> > >
> > A moment of precision here. We won't test to see if the right compiler is used,
> > we will just test for the wrong one.
>
> Ok that makes a lot more sense
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > It makes sense to refuse to build a piece of the kernel if it break's
> > a machine - anything else is a timebomb waiting to explode.
>
> The logical conclusion of that is to replace the entire kernel tree with
>
> #error "compiler or program might have a bug. Aborting"
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > As it stands, there is no way to determine programatically whether
> > gcc-2.96 is broken or now. The only way to do it is to check the RPM
> > version -- which, needless to say, is a bit difficult to do from the
> > C code about to be compiled. So I can't really blame Hans
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > my convenience matters as much as that of the users. I don't want to use
> > #ifdefs, I want it to die explosively and verbosely informatively. make isn't
> > the most natural language for that, but I am sure Yura can find a way.
>
> Run a small shell check and let it
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Users cannot use gcc 2.96 as shipped in RedHat 7.0 if they want to use
> > reiserfs. It is that simple. How can you even consider defending allowing the
> > use of it without requiring a positive affirmation by the user that they don't
> > know what they are doing and
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > So, did Linus say no? If not, let's ask him with a patch. Quite simply,
> > neither we nor the users should be burdened with this, and the patch removes
> > the burden.
>
> Since egcs-1.1.2 and gcc 2.95 miscompile the kernel strstr code dont forget
> to stop those being
Chris Mason wrote:
> Hans, decisions about proper compilers should not be made in each
> individual part of the kernel. If unpatched gcc 2.96 is getting reiserfs
broke is broke. If you use reiserfs, DO NOT use 2.96. Period. Nobody gains
by letting a single user make this mistake.
>
This is why our next patch will detect the use of gcc 2.96, and complain, in the
reiserfs Makefile.
Hans
Jan Kasprzak wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> with ReiserFS support in 2.4.1 I have decided to give it a try.
> I created a filesystem on a spare partition, mounted it as /mnt,
> and
This is why our next patch will detect the use of gcc 2.96, and complain, in the
reiserfs Makefile.
Hans
Jan Kasprzak wrote:
Hello,
with ReiserFS support in 2.4.1 I have decided to give it a try.
I created a filesystem on a spare partition, mounted it as /mnt,
and tried
101 - 200 of 230 matches
Mail list logo
