Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

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)


This search system is powered by Namazu