Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+fix\s+barrier\s+fail\s+detection\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+fix\s+barrier\s+fail\s+detection\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] fix barrier fail detection (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:00:42 +0200; Currently we disable barriers as soon as we get a buffer in xlog_iodone that has the XBF_ORDERED flag cleared. But this can be the case not only for buffers where the barrier failed, but also the fir; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00151.html (10,481 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] fix barrier fail detection (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:24:08 -0500; Fix looks good to me (I saw this failure too but at first attributed it to some hackery I was working on). Think it can still make 2.6.27? -Eric; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00152.html (12,054 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] fix barrier fail detection (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:35:34 +1100; Looks good. Should this be sent straight to Linus to get it into .27? If you want to do that, you can add my SOB. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00157.html (9,396 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] fix barrier fail detection (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 02:43:36 +0200; I'll hope Lachlan or Tim as maintainers will pick up..; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00161.html (8,285 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] fix barrier fail detection (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:44:12 +1100; Oops. Looks good and I'll check it in to ptools. Thanks, Tim.; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00162.html (11,937 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] fix barrier fail detection (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:12:58 +1100; Actually, probably need to update the comment for this one. The existing comment being: Okay, we probably should update this comment too. The existing comment being: Might as well fix the existing ty; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00163.html (13,172 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] fix barrier fail detection (score: 1): Author: ); Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:17:03 +1100; i.e. something like: Index: 2.6.x-xfs-quilt/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c == -- 2.6.x-xfs-quilt.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c 2008-09-19 13:47:36.000000000 +1000 +++ 2.6.x-xfs-quilt/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/x; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00169.html (13,673 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] fix barrier fail detection (score: 1): Author: ); Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:27:32 +1100; ..... ..... Looks fine to me. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00171.html (9,057 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] fix barrier fail detection (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:23:34 +0200; Yeah, looks good.; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00186.html (8,728 bytes)
10. eplace the mount inode list with radix tree traversals (score: 1): Author: <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:00:42 +0200; Currently we disable barriers as soon as we get a buffer in xlog_iodone that has the XBF_ORDERED flag cleared. But this can be the case not only for buffers where the barrier failed, but also the fir; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00971.html (10,301 bytes)
11. dix tree traversals (score: 1): Author: Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:24:08 -0500; Fix looks good to me (I saw this failure too but at first attributed it to some hackery I was working on). Think it can still make 2.6.27? -Eric; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00972.html (11,874 bytes)
12. reclaim (score: 1): Author: <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:35:34 +1100; Looks good. Should this be sent straight to Linus to get it into .27? If you want to do that, you can add my SOB. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00978.html (9,216 bytes)
13. s inode reclaim (score: 1): Author: kie <pleckie@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 02:43:36 +0200; I'll hope Lachlan or Tim as maintainers will pick up..; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00981.html (8,105 bytes)
14. eout feature (score: 1): Author: Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:44:12 +1100; Oops. Looks good and I'll check it in to ptools. Thanks, Tim.; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00982.html (11,757 bytes)
15. t feature (score: 1): Author: Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:12:58 +1100; Actually, probably need to update the comment for this one. The existing comment being: Okay, we probably should update this comment too. The existing comment being: Might as well fix the existing ty; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00983.html (12,992 bytes)
16. _ defines (score: 1): Author: xxx (Lachlan McIlroy); Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:17:03 +1100; i.e. something like: Index: 2.6.x-xfs-quilt/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c == -- 2.6.x-xfs-quilt.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c 2008-09-19 13:47:36.000000000 +1000 +++ 2.6.x-xfs-quilt/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/x; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00989.html (13,493 bytes)
17. PATCH V2] Re-dirty pages on ENOSPC when converting delayed allocations (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx (Peter Leckie); Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:27:32 +1100; ..... ..... Looks fine to me. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00991.html (8,877 bytes)
18. anup maxrecs calculation. (score: 1): Author: <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:23:34 +0200; Yeah, looks good.; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01006.html (8,549 bytes)
19. [PATCH] fix barrier fail detection (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:00:42 +0200; Currently we disable barriers as soon as we get a buffer in xlog_iodone that has the XBF_ORDERED flag cleared. But this can be the case not only for buffers where the barrier failed, but also the fir; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01789.html (10,301 bytes)
20. Re: [PATCH] fix barrier fail detection (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:24:08 -0500; Fix looks good to me (I saw this failure too but at first attributed it to some hackery I was working on). Think it can still make 2.6.27? -Eric; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01790.html (11,934 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]