[also changed the subject to something more useful here]
Andrew Gildfind <ajag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> Could you put a printk at the start of the sys_attrctl function defined
> in linux/fs/stat.c, and rerun the QA test 020, or drive the attribute code
> directly using xfs_attr, and check whether the printk actually gets called.
> If it doesn't then we know for sure it's the syscall that isn't hooked up
> correctly. unistd.h and entry.S looked like the only places which needed
> to be changed but I may have missed something. If it does hit the the
> attribute
> syscall, then there's a more serious problem somewhere else in the code.
looks like this is the case:
...
Start mounting filesystem: ide0(3,8)
Ending clean XFS mount for filesystem: ide0(3,8)
here is sys_attrctl
here is sys_attrctl
here is sys_attrctl
here is sys_attrctl
here is sys_attrctl
here is sys_attrctl
here is sys_attrctl
here is sys_attrctl
here is sys_attrctl
here is sys_attrctl
here is sys_attrctl
here is sys_attrctl
here is sys_attrctl
Start mounting filesystem: ide0(3,8)
Ending clean XFS mount for filesystem: ide0(3,8)
ppc:/usr/src/xfs/cmd/xfs/stress #
this is the dmesg of check 020 - it gets called - so the problem is
somethere deeper ... maybe anykind of endian stuff of the parameters?
(just an idea) ... do you have any other idea?
t
--
thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
technical director innominate AG
clustering & security the linux architects
tel: +49-30-308806-13 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com
|