xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...)

To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: FAQ updated (was Re: XFS breakage...)
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:14:52 +1000
Cc: David Greaves <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Torsten Landschoff <torsten@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, ml@xxxxxxxx, radsaq@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20060720161121.GA26748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from cw@xxxxxxxx on Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 09:11:21AM -0700
References: <20060718222941.GA3801@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060719085731.C1935136@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1153304468.3706.4.camel@localhost> <20060720171310.B1970528@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44BF8500.1010708@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060720161121.GA26748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 09:11:21AM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 02:28:32PM +0100, David Greaves wrote:
> 
> > Does this problem exist in 2.16.6.x??
> 
> The change was merged after 2.6.16.x was branched, I was mistaken
> in how long I thought the bug has been about.
> 
> > I hope so because I assumed there simply wasn't a patch for 2.6.16 and
> > applied this 'best guess' to my servers and rebooted/remounted successfully.
> 
> Doing the correct change to 2.6.16.x won't hurt, but it's not
> necessary.

Yep.  As Chris said, 2.6.17 is the only affected kernel.  I've
fixed up the whacky html formatting and my merge error (thanks
to all for reporting those) so its a bit more readable now.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan


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