xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0

To: "Foris, Jim (MED)" <james.foris@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0
From: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: 29 Aug 2003 09:01:47 -0500
Cc: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxx>, "Foris, Jim (MED)" <foris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>, Kai Leibrandt <k_leibrandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Simon Matter'" <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Axel Thimm'" <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3F4F3F97.9010701@med.ge.com>
Organization:
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308280914100.19961-100000@stout.americas.sgi.com> <3F4E5AD3.80101@med.ge.com> <1062111109.4318.6.camel@naboo> <1062115583.1695.25.camel@laptop.americas.sgi.com> <3F4F3F97.9010701@med.ge.com>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 06:57, Foris, Jim (MED) wrote:

> 
> Turns out that information is in my original posting:
> 
>      4144  write(2, "write: 0xbffed120, 8192: Invalid"..., 41) = 41 <0.000012>
> 
> So the buffer address, 0xbffed120, is NOT correctly alligned.
> 
> 
> AND THE MYSTERY IS SOLVED; RPM fails because the person who tried to use
> O_DIRECT file access to an internal database file did not check for/guarantee
> correct buffer address alignment.  This bug did not show up to Red Hat because
> they never tested it (RPM) on a file system that actually supports O_DIRECT
> (because they don't have any).
> 

Can someone bug ;-) redhat about this one then?

Thanks,

Steve

-- 

Steve Lord                                      voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software         email: lord@xxxxxxx


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>