[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS umount issue

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS umount issue
From: Nuno Subtil <subtil@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 01:08:11 -0700
Cc: Paul Anderson <pha@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=ZX92zD+Ow/cIpTOIresSwpaRl81rjhbic7Ysb8Y+WHo=; b=eHxmMoE47dIaJkAn/LyGAML9ePHFLgja/OViBmb2uHGVZiqpFLYzOTmM9UoZJgRgK4 s0F1KCmX9kAhQ4ISbK3M/8gx8050XJGBhjs1WCyyaH3e9EfC75Vzmzzz2AcYWfKdchul QhlnM07M2Jn+Yqq0p5hp96JakWyOOUNOYqSPY=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=kmPq73ccz6yImUrASP0pXl6ufXdbkFWrL87G5/2LLr3V/uVzCpDZQKZt7LSs+X94hk zw0gO9A8jZ9CJo1PWlilvyQ3NU3x6U8Q51yxVJNE6ZKjrjMuRzFzcI5w2nZMybQppEWE E7+uoJTl3YlVA4vV1pSRbybUvHNOfC93O+TnY=
In-reply-to: <20110525002947.GK32466@dastard>
References: <BANLkTikNMrFzxJF4a86ZM55r3D=ThPFmOw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <BANLkTin26bRHiaCxc15ZwjX__NR3QHaSFA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <BANLkTimOA3W2V+0uPsjpPt=MqrbeGcfs5g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110525002947.GK32466@dastard>
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 17:29, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Mine is a Netgear Stora. The interesting bit is that the stock
>> firmware runs kernel and uses XFS as well, but I don't know
>> how stable it was to begin with.
> Have you checked to see whether there are extra patches added to
> that kernel by Netgear? It's not uncommon for these embedded systems
> to run a kernel that has been patched to fix problems that you are
> seeing.

I looked through it and didn't see anything that stood out, although I
could have easily missed it (the diff is quite noisy, plus it sounds
like the vmap cache invalidation functions have changed names in the

The one interesting bit that I found was that the Netgear kernel
comments out the test that disables write barriers at mount time,
which I found quite odd, but it sounds unrelated to this issue.


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