|To:||Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: XFS: accounting of reclaimable inodes is incorrect|
|From:||Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG <s.priebe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:48:38 +0200|
|References:||<4DEE0EA4.9090002@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110607115441.GA4653@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4DEE2078.3010102@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110607133429.GA9049@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:22.214.171.124) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10|
Am 07.06.2011 15:34, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
OK so my thought was totally wrong. I thought the longterm stable releases will still get bugfixed by SGI or whoever wrote the stuff. Sorry for that then. But what is then the idea of a longterm stable?On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 02:58:32PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Linux 2.6.32 isn't really something supported by us. It's not just a very old codebase, but also one where a lot of the XFS code was pretty much in flux. If you want supported old releases work use one of the commercially supported one like RedHat or SuSE.
Redhat seems to have fixed it on it's own: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642680I suspect the upstream commit you want is 081003fff467ea0e727f66d5d435b4f473a789b3, but I can't gurantee this actually applies to the 2.6.32 codebase.
No it doesn't. I already tried to implement it into current 126.96.36.199 code. Greets Stefan
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: XFS: accounting of reclaimable inodes is incorrect, Christoph Hellwig|
|Next by Date:||Re: XFS: accounting of reclaimable inodes is incorrect, Dave Howorth|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: XFS: accounting of reclaimable inodes is incorrect, Christoph Hellwig|
|Next by Thread:||Re: XFS: accounting of reclaimable inodes is incorrect, Christoph Hellwig|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|