| To: | Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>, LA Walsh <law@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs vs. jfs results: why? |
| From: | Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:02:41 +0100 |
| In-reply-to: | <20030120094121.GB22177@suse.de> |
| References: | <4.3.2.7.2.20030120103529.042f3d50@pop.xs4all.nl> <000001c2c032$e4edc240$1403a8c0@sc.tlinx.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20030120103529.042f3d50@pop.xs4all.nl> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
At 10:41 20-1-2003 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: 2.4.19 did not have the block highmem feature, so that's not correct. 2.4.20, as released, does not have the bug either. It was in the -pre series.
in-memory corruption at coffee.c line 268. Cheers -- Seth It might just be your lucky day, if you only knew. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Patched 1.2Pre5 kernel, Seth Mos |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfs vs. jfs results: why?, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs vs. jfs results: why?, Jens Axboe |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs vs. jfs results: why?, Stephen Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |