xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.4.4-xfs NFS testing

To: Mark Hounschell <dmarkh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.4.4-xfs NFS testing
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 12:58:44 +0200
Cc: utz lehmann <xfs@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, Eric Whiting <ewhiting@xxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3AF137CB.5DE970F6@cfl.rr.com>; from dmarkh@cfl.rr.com on Thu, May 03, 2001 at 06:49:47AM -0400
References: <3AF0468B.70E8B919@amis.com> <20010502195501.A13116@gruyere.muc.suse.de> <20010502203454.A9561@s2y4n2c.de> <3AF137CB.5DE970F6@cfl.rr.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 06:49:47AM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> I've heard rumors on the SuSE-e list that the lastest stable release
> 2.95.3 works
> ok woth XFS. Haven't tried it yet. Get SuSE's rpm and try it first.

The latest XFS tree has some workaround for known 2.95 long long bugs (mainly 
division) and they seem to work somehow; but nobody knows if that really 
catched all cases or if there isn't miscompilation in more obscure code 
paths left. XFS is full of long long computation (you wanted a "64bit 
filesystem", didn't you?). Using egcs 1.1 is definitely safer, with it 
XFS has been tested a lot more.  You could also use XFS on a 64bit 
architecture like an Alpha.


-Andi


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