| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: bugzilla vs. bugzilla |
| From: | Jan-Frode Myklebust <janfrode@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:25:01 +0200 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1091038172.7002.12.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20040728103708.GA26088@xxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0407281035240.32423-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040728163220.GA28915@xxxxxxxxx> <1091038172.7002.12.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 01:09:32PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
> Well, xfs is not good at failing memory allocations - irix would happily
> wait forever for memory, rather than failing. Linux 2.6 should now also
> have this feature (allocations that can wait forever) but for a while
> (IIRC) there was a problem where memory allocation -could- fail, xfs
> doesn't check for this, and kablooey.
>
Could these crashes be related to the 4KSTACKS which Steve Lord seems
to be advising against?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&client=googlet&frame=right&th=a1bc6f5a855bb5e8&seekm=2k46t-2u5-21%40gated-at.bofh.it#link1
-jf
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [2.6 patch] let 4KSTACKS depend on EXPERIMENTAL and XFS on 4KSTACKS=n, Adrian Bunk |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [2.6 patch] let 4KSTACKS depend on EXPERIMENTAL and XFS on 4KSTACKS=n, Chris Wedgwood |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: bugzilla vs. bugzilla, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: bugzilla vs. bugzilla, Chris Wedgwood |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |