xfs
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: Is test xfs/096 correct?

from [Eric Sandeen] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Is test xfs/096 correct?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:43:38 -0600
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CACj3i71kgpqNvg0ru=-4x6gtJ8faOVn-P=y_AM+xwoKbm-55tQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CACj3i71kgpqNvg0ru=-4x6gtJ8faOVn-P=y_AM+xwoKbm-55tQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 
On 12/4/15 6:20 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:
> BTW: I tried to look for the mentioned pv number, but didn't found it - where 
> should I look further?

That's the old internal SGI bug tracking system, not visible to the outside.

-Eric
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: Is test xfs/096 correct?, Jan Tulak
Next by Date:  [PATCH] xfs_db: make check work for sparse inodes, Darrick J. Wong
Previous by Thread:  Re: Is test xfs/096 correct?, Jan Tulak
Next by Thread:  [PATCH] xfs_db: make check work for sparse inodes, Darrick J. Wong
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]