Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*xfs\:\s+outstanding\s+patches\s+for\s+2\.6\.39\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*xfs\:\s+outstanding\s+patches\s+for\s+2\.6\.39\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. xfs: outstanding patches for 2.6.39 (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:14:24 +1100; Hi Alex, The followingis the remaing series of patches that I have ready for 2.6.39. Most of them are bug fixes, only the prealloc transaction change and the buffer cache changes are enhancements. Th; /archives/xfs/2011-03/msg00235.html (8,430 bytes)
2. Re: xfs: outstanding patches for 2.6.39 (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:01:17 -0700; One (somewhat obscure) regression will be that you won't be able to recover from uncorrected memory errors in the buffer cache anymore. Previously memory_failure() could just drop it transparently wh; /archives/xfs/2011-03/msg00242.html (9,038 bytes)
3. Re: xfs: outstanding patches for 2.6.39 (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:18:42 -0400; I think we'll need the inode OOM fixes for .39, too. But if you need some more time for them it's fine to wait for them for a while.; /archives/xfs/2011-03/msg00243.html (7,861 bytes)
4. Re: xfs: outstanding patches for 2.6.39 (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:38:03 +1100; We can't do that right now, anyway. If the page is not in use, we don't care about it after this patch set is applied - the page is either active in a buffer or it has been freed. If it is in use, th; /archives/xfs/2011-03/msg00244.html (10,163 bytes)
5. Re: xfs: outstanding patches for 2.6.39 (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:38:48 +1100; They are not ready yet. When i have them sorted out, I'll post them as 2.6.39 candidates. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2011-03/msg00245.html (9,085 bytes)
6. Re: xfs: outstanding patches for 2.6.39 (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:05:15 +0100; It seemed to work on XFS when we tested it. Undoutedly after your patch it won't work anymore. I think you're confusing the memory_failure() HWPoison path with some XFS internal checking. I don't th; /archives/xfs/2011-03/msg00259.html (10,091 bytes)
7. Re: xfs: outstanding patches for 2.6.39 (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:48:10 +1100; And why? We still have exactly the same nuumber of active buffers as before this patch, so exactly the same number of pages that you simply can't replace No, it doesn't. My point is that you can't te; /archives/xfs/2011-03/msg00266.html (13,590 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]