| To: | "Foris, Jim (MED)" <james.foris@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0 |
| From: | Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 29 Aug 2003 09:01:47 -0500 |
| Cc: | Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxx>, "Foris, Jim (MED)" <foris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>, Kai Leibrandt <k_leibrandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Simon Matter'" <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Axel Thimm'" <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3F4F3F97.9010701@med.ge.com> |
| Organization: | |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308280914100.19961-100000@stout.americas.sgi.com> <3F4E5AD3.80101@med.ge.com> <1062111109.4318.6.camel@naboo> <1062115583.1695.25.camel@laptop.americas.sgi.com> <3F4F3F97.9010701@med.ge.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 06:57, Foris, Jim (MED) wrote: > > Turns out that information is in my original posting: > > 4144 write(2, "write: 0xbffed120, 8192: Invalid"..., 41) = 41 <0.000012> > > So the buffer address, 0xbffed120, is NOT correctly alligned. > > > AND THE MYSTERY IS SOLVED; RPM fails because the person who tried to use > O_DIRECT file access to an internal database file did not check for/guarantee > correct buffer address alignment. This bug did not show up to Red Hat because > they never tested it (RPM) on a file system that actually supports O_DIRECT > (because they don't have any). > Can someone bug ;-) redhat about this one then? Thanks, Steve -- Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511 Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@xxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0, Foris, Jim (MED) |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0, Axel Thimm |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0, Foris, Jim (MED) |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0, Axel Thimm |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |