Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*REVIEW\:\s+xfs_repair\s+fixes\s+for\s+bad\s+directories\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*REVIEW\:\s+xfs_repair\s+fixes\s+for\s+bad\s+directories\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:08:27 +1000; On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:13:06 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:00:17PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote: Two issues have been encounted with xfs_repair and badly corrup; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00392.html (9,621 bytes)
2. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:32:05 -0400; As menioned before this one is trivial nad makes sens. Where is the existing attemp? I can't find code doing anything like that removed in the patch. But the actual patch looks good, while I had this; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00404.html (9,397 bytes)
3. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:33:50 +1000; On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:32:05 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:00:17PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote: Two issues have been encounted with xfs_repair and badly corrup; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00408.html (10,333 bytes)
4. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: k); Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:21:34 +1000; On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:32:05 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:00:17PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote: 2. An update a while ago to xfs_repair attempts to fix invalid; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00415.html (10,614 bytes)
5. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:08:27 +1000; On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:13:06 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:00:17PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote: Two issues have been encounted with xfs_repair and badly corrup; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00840.html (9,621 bytes)
6. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:32:05 -0400; As menioned before this one is trivial nad makes sens. Where is the existing attemp? I can't find code doing anything like that removed in the patch. But the actual patch looks good, while I had this; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00852.html (9,397 bytes)
7. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:33:50 +1000; On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:32:05 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:00:17PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote: Two issues have been encounted with xfs_repair and badly corrup; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00856.html (10,333 bytes)
8. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: aujok); Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:21:34 +1000; On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:32:05 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:00:17PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote: 2. An update a while ago to xfs_repair attempts to fix invalid; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00863.html (10,614 bytes)
9. REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:00:17 +1000; Two issues have been encounted with xfs_repair and badly corrupted 1. A huge size (inode di_size) can cause malloc which will fail. Patch dir_size_check.patch checks for a valid directory size and if; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00000.html (8,445 bytes)
10. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 04:13:06 -0400; This one looks good. For this one I'll need to read the surrounding code first to do a useful review, so it'll take some time.; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00004.html (8,676 bytes)
11. REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:00:17 +1000; Two issues have been encounted with xfs_repair and badly corrupted 1. A huge size (inode di_size) can cause malloc which will fail. Patch dir_size_check.patch checks for a valid directory size and if; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00623.html (8,445 bytes)
12. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 04:13:06 -0400; This one looks good. For this one I'll need to read the surrounding code first to do a useful review, so it'll take some time.; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00627.html (8,676 bytes)
13. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:08:27 +1000; On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:13:06 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 1. A huge size (inode di_size) can cause malloc which will fail. Patch dir_size_check.patch checks for a valid directo; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01288.html (9,729 bytes)
14. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:32:05 -0400; As menioned before this one is trivial nad makes sens. Where is the existing attemp? I can't find code doing anything like that removed in the patch. But the actual patch looks good, while I had this; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01300.html (9,503 bytes)
15. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:33:50 +1000; On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:32:05 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 1. A huge size (inode di_size) can cause malloc which will fail. Patch dir_size_check.patch checks for a valid directo; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01304.html (10,416 bytes)
16. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:21:34 +1000; On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:32:05 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 2. An update a while ago to xfs_repair attempts to fix invalid ".." entries for subdirectories where there is a valid; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01311.html (10,675 bytes)
17. REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:00:17 +1000; Two issues have been encounted with xfs_repair and badly corrupted directories. 1. A huge size (inode di_size) can cause malloc which will fail. Patch dir_size_check.patch checks for a valid director; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01246.html (8,299 bytes)
18. Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 04:13:06 -0400; This one looks good. For this one I'll need to read the surrounding code first to do a useful review, so it'll take some time.; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01250.html (8,726 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]