n.org, gustavo...@kernel.org, keesc...@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
Thanks Darrick, I'll get a 5.14.2 pushed out today. Not sure if it was you
or I who stuffed it into this header originally, but apologies for not
thinking that through before merging it in any case.
Reviewed-by: Eric
On 1/9/21 2:42 PM, Bastian Germann wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 19:31:50 +0100 Bastian Germann
> wrote:
>> xfsprogs' debian/copyright only mentions Silicon Graphics, Inc.'s copyright.
>> There are other copyright holders, e.g. Oracle, Red Hat, Google LLC, and
>> several individuals. Please provi
tags: moreinfo
tags: wontfix
Tagging wontfix, as this is not a bug. Dave points out the proper mkfs options
for for older kernels, above.
If you can turn on tracing for the xfs_swap_extent\* tracepoints and rerun,
that might give us more information about the failure.
Thanks,
-Eric
junking everything.
Addresses-Debian-Bug: 782012
Reported-by: F. Stoyan
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen
---
diff --git a/db/sb.c b/db/sb.c
index 6cb665d..f31f4a2 100644
--- a/db/sb.c
+++ b/db/sb.c
@@ -363,6 +363,18 @@ uuid_f(
return 0
v5 filesystems stamp the filesystem UUID into many pieces of metadata;
changing it only in the superblock via xfs_admin makes every other bit
of metadata look wrong.
We need to disable the ability to change UUID in xfs_admin, I'll send
a patch.
Thanks for the report,
-Eric
On 4/6/15 8:23 AM, F.
On 10/27/12 1:33 PM, Logan Rosen wrote:
> Package: xfsprogs
> Version: 3.1.7build1
> Severity: important
> User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
> Usertags: origin-ubuntu raring
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> This bug report was also filed in Ubuntu and can be found at
> http://launchpad.net/bugs/1071800
On 9/25/12 11:35 AM, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Nope. That is perfectly fine.
Yep sorry, I misunderstood what pvmove was doing.
-Eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
I'd be curious to know what this disk is, as well as what filesystem
this was (I assume ext3) and what error messages were actually encountered.
Could you tell us the model, but more importantly:
# blockdev --getss --getpbsz /dev/whatever
It sounds like it is a 4k drive but with no logical 512 m
I've pushed a commit which should fix this, assuming xfsprogs is built with
libblkid support enabled:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=fs/xfs/xfsprogs-dev.git;a=commitdiff;h=287d168b550857ce40e04b5f618d7eb91b87022f
-Eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a su
On 3/1/12 2:33 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 09:14:09AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> And I can confirm that the sector size detection is still broken in
>> 3.1.7.
>
> That's a known bug that Carlos wanted to look into. If you really can't
> accept smaller I/O wit
On 2/28/12 3:11 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Carlos, didn't you plan to look into this issue?
>
> Goswin, how do you determin that mkfs is still doing unaligned I/O
> when forcing the large sevtor size? Once we set the sector size XFS
> can't do I/O smaller than it.
I did think this was suppos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/31/11 6:23 AM, Michael Prokop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (original bugreport at the end of the mail, fullquote by intention)
>
> I just investigated on this FTBFS issue.
>
> The problem is that extundelete doesn't compile against e2fslibs-dev
> versions
On 1/2/12 8:13 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Currently the value reported for max_batch_time is really the
> value of min_batch_time.
>
> Reported-by: Russell Coker
> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings
whoops, yep!
Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen
> ---
> fs/ext4/super.c |2 +-
On Nov 24, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:41:31PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 06:02:02PM -0400, Mark J. Small wrote:
My kernel is linux-image-2.6.30-2-kirkwood_2.6.30-8+orion1_armel.deb
from http://people.debian.org/~tb
Stefan Lippers-Hollmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Dienstag, 22. Juli 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> Are you sure -29 worked but -30 didn't? This would indicate
>>> ext3_256byte_inode.diff introduced this regression.
>>>
>>> Which version of e2fsprogs did you use to create that ext2fs?
>
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Do you know what the status is of your XFS patch to make it work on
> ARM (old ABI)?
It was just recently added to the xfs cvs tree. Message to the list was
"TAKE 982930 - fix dir2 shortform structures on ARM old ABI"
-Eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 07:00:18PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
>> Eric, can you confirm whether or not Fedora has this bug fixed?
...
> Is it possible that Fedora links selinux not against pthread or all
> binaries against pthread?
Right, it appears that on Fedora, with a r
Theodore Tso wrote:
> The problem is that devmapper.pc needs to patched as follows:
>
> --- /usr/lib/pkgconfig/devmapper.pc.orig2007-09-24 11:29:27.0
> -0400
> +++ /usr/lib/pkgconfig/devmapper.pc 2008-01-01 18:55:37.0 -0500
> @@ -8,4 +8,4 @@
> Version: "1.02.20 (2007
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
Yep. Padding rules on old-ABI ARM systems are 'special', but still
spec-compliant. See:
Thanks, I've read up a bit since, and I think I grok it now :)
So, adding __attribute__((packed)) to xfs_dir2_sf_off_t,
xfs_dir2_sf_hdr_t, and perhaps also xfs_dir2_sf_entry_t m
Maybe the alignment isn't broken; it's just "special" - I guess there
are no actual rules on how the structure must be aligned... hmm...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Root cause seems to be gcc misaligning the xfs shortform directory
structures. In the example below, bar.parent has offset 4, while
boo.parent has offset 2. The union seems to cause extra padding - I
believe "c" should be at offset 2 in both structures.
This is leading to trouble in xfs_dir2
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Eric,
>
> We at Debian received a bug report about XFS on ARM (see below). I
> noticed your posting at
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-03/msg00053.html in which you
> said that this was a known issue. I cannot find the workaround you
> mentioned in your message.
24 matches
Mail list logo
