Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*xfsdump\/xfsrestore\s+problem\s+in\s+the\s+1\.0\.1\s+release\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: Brent A Nelson <brent@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:59:13 -0400 (EDT)
Under release 1.0.1, I noticed a problem with xfsdump/xfsrestore that wasn't there in 1.0 (although it did fix an OOPS, and the earlier SUID problem). Doing an xfsdump of / piped to a restore on anot
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00453.html (7,626 bytes)

2. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:51:46 -0500
Yes, there is a problem here, I just replicated it locally on the current cvs kernel and xfsdump/restore packages. A mknod on its own creates the correct information, so this is either dump not gett
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00492.html (8,657 bytes)

3. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:13:25 -0500
Hmm, I am pretty sure this would never have worked, the code to mknod the device in the restore program has always taken the unconverted device number from the archive and passed it to the kernel. S
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00497.html (9,173 bytes)

4. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: Brent A Nelson <brent@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:15:58 -0400 (EDT)
Ah, yes, maybe it didn't work before. Since the old release used devfs, I would never have noticed if /dev on the filesystem was messed up. Thanks, Brent
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00498.html (9,324 bytes)

5. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: ivanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ivan Rayner)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:07:48 +1000
I'll look into it. Ivan -- Ivan Rayner ivanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00517.html (8,662 bytes)

6. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: ivanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ivan Rayner)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:16:10 +1000
No I wont ... But what I will do is read all my email in future before butting in. :) Ivan -- Ivan Rayner ivanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00518.html (8,911 bytes)

7. xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:59:13 -0400 (EDT)
Under release 1.0.1, I noticed a problem with xfsdump/xfsrestore that wasn't there in 1.0 (although it did fix an OOPS, and the earlier SUID problem). Doing an xfsdump of / piped to a restore on anot
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01744.html (7,626 bytes)

8. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:51:46 -0500
Yes, there is a problem here, I just replicated it locally on the current cvs kernel and xfsdump/restore packages. A mknod on its own creates the correct information, so this is either dump not gett
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01783.html (8,657 bytes)

9. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:13:25 -0500
Hmm, I am pretty sure this would never have worked, the code to mknod the device in the restore program has always taken the unconverted device number from the archive and passed it to the kernel. S
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01788.html (9,173 bytes)

10. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:15:58 -0400 (EDT)
Ah, yes, maybe it didn't work before. Since the old release used devfs, I would never have noticed if /dev on the filesystem was messed up. Thanks, Brent
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01789.html (9,324 bytes)

11. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:07:48 +1000
I'll look into it. Ivan -- Ivan Rayner ivanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01808.html (8,662 bytes)

12. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: er)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:16:10 +1000
No I wont ... But what I will do is read all my email in future before butting in. :) Ivan -- Ivan Rayner ivanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg01809.html (8,911 bytes)

13. xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: Brent A Nelson <brent@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:59:13 -0400 (EDT)
Under release 1.0.1, I noticed a problem with xfsdump/xfsrestore that wasn't there in 1.0 (although it did fix an OOPS, and the earlier SUID problem). Doing an xfsdump of / piped to a restore on anot
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg03035.html (7,626 bytes)

14. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:51:46 -0500
Yes, there is a problem here, I just replicated it locally on the current cvs kernel and xfsdump/restore packages. A mknod on its own creates the correct information, so this is either dump not gett
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg03074.html (8,745 bytes)

15. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:13:25 -0500
Hmm, I am pretty sure this would never have worked, the code to mknod the device in the restore program has always taken the unconverted device number from the archive and passed it to the kernel. S
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg03079.html (9,245 bytes)

16. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: Brent A Nelson <brent@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:15:58 -0400 (EDT)
Ah, yes, maybe it didn't work before. Since the old release used devfs, I would never have noticed if /dev on the filesystem was messed up. Thanks, Brent
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg03080.html (9,356 bytes)

17. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: ivanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ivan Rayner)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:07:48 +1000
I'll look into it. Ivan -- Ivan Rayner ivanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg03099.html (8,694 bytes)

18. Re: xfsdump/xfsrestore problem in the 1.0.1 release (score: 1)
Author: ivanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ivan Rayner)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:16:10 +1000
No I wont ... But what I will do is read all my email in future before butting in. :) Ivan -- Ivan Rayner ivanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg03100.html (8,958 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu