xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Differences in mkfs.xfs and xfs_info output.

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Differences in mkfs.xfs and xfs_info output.
From: Jan Derfinak <ja@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:20:42 +0100 (CET)
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080219002059.GX155407@xxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0802160149590.4592@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080216074019.GV155407@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0802162319300.6528@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080217230645.GY155407@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0802180015110.4514@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0802190044350.8907@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080219002059.GX155407@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, David Chinner wrote:

> 
> The output I showed you was from an ia64 machine, so it's not
> purely 64bit related.
> 
> Can you rebuild you x86_64 kernel from the same kernel
> tree you built the ia32 (make mrproper; make ....) and reinstall
> it and see if the still exists?

Done, but the problem still exists.
# xfs_check /dev/loop0
sb_fdblocks 253756, counted 254780

Dave, when you tested on ia64, did you use mkfs.xfs which wrote feature2
record on right place or did you use your patch to correct feature2 on
mount? Because I use mkfs.xfs patched with Eric Sandeen patch on x86_64 to
create FS which really has lazy-count=1.

Cheers,
 
jan

-- 


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