On 1/2/12 8:13 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Currently the value reported for max_batch_time is really the
> value of min_batch_time.
>
> Reported-by: Russell Coker
> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings
whoops, yep!
Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen
> ---
> fs/ext4/super.c |2 +-
On Nov 24, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:41:31PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 06:02:02PM -0400, Mark J. Small wrote:
My kernel is linux-image-2.6.30-2-kirkwood_2.6.30-8+orion1_armel.deb
from http://people.debian.org/~tb
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Do you know what the status is of your XFS patch to make it work on
> ARM (old ABI)?
It was just recently added to the xfs cvs tree. Message to the list was
"TAKE 982930 - fix dir2 shortform structures on ARM old ABI"
-Eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
Yep. Padding rules on old-ABI ARM systems are 'special', but still
spec-compliant. See:
Thanks, I've read up a bit since, and I think I grok it now :)
So, adding __attribute__((packed)) to xfs_dir2_sf_off_t,
xfs_dir2_sf_hdr_t, and perhaps also xfs_dir2_sf_entry_t m
Maybe the alignment isn't broken; it's just "special" - I guess there
are no actual rules on how the structure must be aligned... hmm...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Root cause seems to be gcc misaligning the xfs shortform directory
structures. In the example below, bar.parent has offset 4, while
boo.parent has offset 2. The union seems to cause extra padding - I
believe "c" should be at offset 2 in both structures.
This is leading to trouble in xfs_dir2
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Eric,
>
> We at Debian received a bug report about XFS on ARM (see below). I
> noticed your posting at
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-03/msg00053.html in which you
> said that this was a known issue. I cannot find the workaround you
> mentioned in your message.
7 matches
Mail list logo
