Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*xfs_growfs\s+fix\s+backport\s+for\s+2\.6\.16\.y\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*xfs_growfs\s+fix\s+backport\s+for\s+2\.6\.16\.y\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. Re: xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y (score: 1): Author: Ed Cashin <ecashin@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:27:02 -0400; ... ... ... On a 64-bit system running 2.6.16.62 with this patch, test 078 does not succeed because of one difference in the output file, the line in the diff below. Instead of a new size of 41943040; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00032.html (9,277 bytes)
2. Re: xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:14:18 +1000; Ah, yes. That. I think Barry can try to explain that one because: http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/xfs-cmds/xfstests/078.out.diff?r1=1.3;r2=1.4 The test golden output was changed instead of some; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00044.html (9,930 bytes)
3. Re: xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y (score: 1): Author: Ed Cashin <ecashin@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:29:21 -0400; Oh, that's good news, thanks. I just need to test the patch on a 32-bit O.S. now, but I am having a difficult time building xfs-cmds/xfstests on a CentOS 5 VM. Does anyone have a recommendation for a; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00051.html (8,759 bytes)
4. EW: Change mkfs.xfs to set primary superblock inodes in ALL secondaries (score: 1): Author: Ed Cashin <ecashin@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:27:02 -0400; ' That; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00540.html (9,097 bytes)
5. IEW: Improve caching in libxfs (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:14:18 +1000; bility; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00552.html (9,750 bytes)
6. ogs 2.10.1 source tarball released (score: 1): Author: Ed Cashin <ecashin@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:29:21 -0400; the a; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00559.html (8,579 bytes)
7. xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:39:31 -0400; Dave Chinner, hello. Your fix for the counters that had been preventing an XFS from growing by more than two terabytes went into 2.6.21, after the introduction of the per-cpu in-core superblock count; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00382.html (27,566 bytes)
8. Re: xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:01:01 +1000; I suggest you make sure it passes test 078 in the xfsqa suite (part of the xfs-cmds tree) as that tests all the nasty growfs corner cases. You'll need to test it on 32 bit and 64 bit machines.... If; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00390.html (10,076 bytes)
9. xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:39:31 -0400; Dave Chinner, hello. Your fix for the counters that had been preventing an XFS from growing by more than two terabytes went into 2.6.21, after the introduction of the per-cpu in-core superblock count; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00830.html (27,566 bytes)
10. Re: xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:01:01 +1000; I suggest you make sure it passes test 078 in the xfsqa suite (part of the xfs-cmds tree) as that tests all the nasty growfs corner cases. You'll need to test it on 32 bit and 64 bit machines.... If; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00838.html (10,076 bytes)
11. Re: xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y (score: 1): Author: Ed Cashin <ecashin@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:27:02 -0400; ... ... ... On a 64-bit system running 2.6.16.62 with this patch, test 078 does not succeed because of one difference in the output file, the line in the diff below. Instead of a new size of 41943040; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg01048.html (9,268 bytes)
12. Re: xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:14:18 +1000; Ah, yes. That. I think Barry can try to explain that one because: http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/xfs-cmds/xfstests/078.out.diff?r1=1.3;r2=1.4 The test golden output was changed instead of some; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg01060.html (9,939 bytes)
13. Re: xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y (score: 1): Author: Ed Cashin <ecashin@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:29:21 -0400; Oh, that's good news, thanks. I just need to test the patch on a 32-bit O.S. now, but I am having a difficult time building xfs-cmds/xfstests on a CentOS 5 VM. Does anyone have a recommendation for a; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg01067.html (8,852 bytes)
14. xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y (score: 1): Author: Ed Cashin <ecashin@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:39:31 -0400; Dave Chinner, hello. Your fix for the counters that had been preventing an XFS from growing by more than two terabytes went into 2.6.21, after the introduction of the per-cpu in-core superblock count; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01278.html (27,566 bytes)
15. Re: xfs_growfs fix backport for 2.6.16.y (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:01:01 +1000; I suggest you make sure it passes test 078 in the xfsqa suite (part of the xfs-cmds tree) as that tests all the nasty growfs corner cases. You'll need to test it on 32 bit and 64 bit machines.... If; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01286.html (10,134 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]