Al writes:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > If this is the case, then all of the other zero initializations can be
> > removed as well. I figured that if most of the fields were being
> > zeroed, then ones _not_ being zeroed would lead to this problem.
>
> Other zero
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> If this is the case, then all of the other zero initializations can be
> removed as well. I figured that if most of the fields needed to be
> zeroed, then ones _not_ being zeroed would lead to this problem.
Other zero initializations in
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
If this is the case, then all of the other zero initializations can be
removed as well. I figured that if most of the fields needed to be
zeroed, then ones _not_ being zeroed would lead to this problem.
Other zero initializations in
Al writes:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
If this is the case, then all of the other zero initializations can be
removed as well. I figured that if most of the fields were being
zeroed, then ones _not_ being zeroed would lead to this problem.
Other zero
Al Viro writes:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:35:05PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > The only remote possibility is in ext2_free_blocks() if block+count
> > > overflows a 32-bit unsigned value. Only 2 places call ext2_free_blocks()
> > > with
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:35:05PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> > The only remote possibility is in ext2_free_blocks() if block+count
> > overflows a 32-bit unsigned value. Only 2 places call ext2_free_blocks()
> > with a count != 1,
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:35:05PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> The only remote possibility is in ext2_free_blocks() if block+count
> overflows a 32-bit unsigned value. Only 2 places call ext2_free_blocks()
> with a count != 1, and ext2_free_data() looks to be OK. The other
>
Al Viro writes:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:35:05PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
The only remote possibility is in ext2_free_blocks() if block+count
overflows a 32-bit unsigned value. Only 2 places call ext2_free_blocks()
with a count !=
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:35:05PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
The only remote possibility is in ext2_free_blocks() if block+count
overflows a 32-bit unsigned value. Only 2 places call ext2_free_blocks()
with a count != 1, and ext2_free_data() looks to be OK. The other
possibility is
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:35:05PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
The only remote possibility is in ext2_free_blocks() if block+count
overflows a 32-bit unsigned value. Only 2 places call ext2_free_blocks()
with a count != 1, and
Bill Clark wrote (to the moderated [EMAIL PROTECTED] list):
> Not sure if this is a LVM problem or a ext2fs problem. It is happening
> with the 2.4.2 kernel and the 0.9 release of the LVM user tools.
>
> kernel: Kernel panic: EXT2-fs panic (device lvm(58,0)):
> load_block_bitmap: block_group
Bill Clark wrote (to the moderated [EMAIL PROTECTED] list):
Not sure if this is a LVM problem or a ext2fs problem. It is happening
with the 2.4.2 kernel and the 0.9 release of the LVM user tools.
kernel: Kernel panic: EXT2-fs panic (device lvm(58,0)):
load_block_bitmap: block_group =
12 matches
Mail list logo
