xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

TAKE - fix fsx test case failure on 1K block fs

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: TAKE - fix fsx test case failure on 1K block fs
From: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 15:33:27 -0500
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
This I think completes the core of the multiple blocksize
support. Still some open issues in O_DIRECT, but this was
a corruption case during random I/O. Filesystems with 
blocksize == pagesize were not affected by this.

Steve

Date:  Mon May 20 13:33:09 PDT 2002
Workarea:  jen.americas.sgi.com:/src/lord/xfs-linux.2.4

The following file(s) were checked into:
  bonnie.engr.sgi.com:/isms/slinx/2.4.x-xfs


Modid:  2.4.x-xfs:slinx:119562a
linux/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c - 1.526
        - remove sethole vop

linux/fs/xfs/linux/xfs_lrw.c - 1.137
        - remove a large chunk of dead code

linux/fs/xfs/linux/xfs_fs_subr.c - 1.29
        - remove fs_pages_sethole - we no longer have a way to call it anyway

linux/fs/xfs/linux/xfs_iops.c - 1.141
        - Pay more attention to buffer_uptodate state.

linux/fs/xfs/linux/xfs_vnode.h - 1.31
        - remove VOP_PAGES_SETHOLE - it is not used

linux/fs/xfs/linux/xfs_fs_subr.h - 1.5
        - remove fs_pages_sethole

linux/fs/xfs/pagebuf/page_buf_io.c - 1.36
        - If a buffer is not uptodate, then we are definitely not supposed to
          put an extent underneath it.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • TAKE - fix fsx test case failure on 1K block fs, Steve Lord <=