Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+incorrect\s+direct\s+io\s+error\s+handling\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+incorrect\s+direct\s+io\s+error\s+handling\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:36:57 +0300; Sorry for long delay (russian holidays are very hard time :) ) But it doesn't use it. XFS implement it's own write method with it's own locking rules and explicitly call generic_file_direct_write() i; /archives/xfs/2007-01/msg00061.html (13,160 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:36:57 +0300; Sorry for long delay (russian holidays are very hard time :) ) But it doesn't use it. XFS implement it's own write method with it's own locking rules and explicitly call generic_file_direct_write() i; /archives/xfs/2007-01/msg00301.html (13,160 bytes)
3. [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: x; Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:22:44 +0300; This patch is result of discussion started week ago here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/11/66 changes from original patch: - Update wrong comments about i_mutex locking. - Add BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00121.html (12,309 bytes)
4. RE: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:56:36 -0800; Dmitriy Monakhov wrote on Monday, December 18, 2006 5:23 AM I'm puzzled that if ext2 is able to instantiate some blocks, then why does it return no space error? Where is the error coming from?; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00122.html (9,774 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:15:15 +1100; You comment in the first hunk that i_mutex may not be held here, but there's no comment in __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() that the i_mutex must be held for !S_ISBLK devices. I note that you commen; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00123.html (11,888 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:07:12 +0300; Any one may call directly call generic_file_direct_write() with i_mutex not held. This is not about vmtruncate(). __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() may call generic_file_buffered_write() even in case; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00132.html (13,703 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:31:15 +0300; generic_file_aio_write_nolock() ->generic_file_direct_write() ->generic_file_direct_IO() ->ext2_direct_IO(WRITE,...) ->blockdev_direct_IO( ....,ext2_get_block,...); /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00133.html (10,540 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 01:26:31 +1100; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00145.html (11,907 bytes)
9. [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: xxxxx; Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:22:44 +0300; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00336.html (12,309 bytes)
10. RE: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:56:36 -0800; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00337.html (9,774 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:15:15 +1100; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00338.html (11,888 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:07:12 +0300; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00347.html (13,703 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:31:15 +0300; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00348.html (10,540 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 01:26:31 +1100; t; /archives/xfs/2006-12/msg00360.html (11,907 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling (score: 1): Author: Dmitriy Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:36:57 +0300; Sorry for long delay (russian holidays are very hard time :) ) But it doesn't use it. XFS implement it's own write method with it's own locking rules and explicitly call generic_file_direct_write() i; /archives/xfs/2007-01/msg00541.html (13,458 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]