Re: heavy nfs[4]] causes fs badness Was: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-24 Thread Alan Stern
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Florin Iucha wrote: > > It would be nice to learn exactly why the keyboard stopped working. Try > > using the usbmon facility (instructions in Documentation/usb/usbmon.txt) > > to see what happens when you type on the dead keyboard. Be sure to turn > > on CONFIG_USB_DEBUG as

Re: heavy nfs[4]] causes fs badness Was: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-23 Thread Florin Iucha
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 10:58:29AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Florin Iucha wrote: > > > Jiri and Trond, > > > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 01:14:09AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Florin Iucha wrote: > > > > > > > All the testing was done via a ssh into t

Re: heavy nfs[4]] causes fs badness Was: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-15 Thread Alan Stern
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Florin Iucha wrote: > Jiri and Trond, > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 01:14:09AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Florin Iucha wrote: > > > > > All the testing was done via a ssh into the workstation. The console > > > was left as booted into, with the gdm ru

Re: heavy nfs[4]] causes fs badness Was: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-15 Thread Florin Iucha
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 11:11:13PM -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > Florin Iucha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] > > > Based on this info, I think we can rule out any USB. I will try > > testing with NFS3 to see if the problem persists. Unfortunately there > > is no oops or anything in "

Re: heavy nfs[4]] causes fs badness Was: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-15 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Florin Iucha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Based on this info, I think we can rule out any USB. I will try > testing with NFS3 to see if the problem persists. Unfortunately there > is no oops or anything in "dmesg". Take a look at bz #7796, a NFS bug + fix. But my feelin is that this is o

Re: heavy nfs[4]] causes fs badness Was: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-14 Thread Florin Iucha
Jiri and Trond, On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 01:14:09AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Florin Iucha wrote: > > > All the testing was done via a ssh into the workstation. The console > > was left as booted into, with the gdm running. The remote nfs4 > > directory was mounted on "/

Re: heavy nfs[4]] causes fs badness Was: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-14 Thread Jiri Kosina
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Florin Iucha wrote: > All the testing was done via a ssh into the workstation. The console > was left as booted into, with the gdm running. The remote nfs4 > directory was mounted on "/mnt". After copying the 60+ GB and testing > that the keyboard was still functioning, I

Re: heavy nfs[4]] causes fs badness Was: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-14 Thread Trond Myklebust
On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 17:58 -0600, Florin Iucha wrote: > All the testing was done via a ssh into the workstation. The console > was left as booted into, with the gdm running. The remote nfs4 > directory was mounted on "/mnt". > > After copying the 60+ GB and testing that the keyboard was still >

heavy nfs[4]] causes fs badness Was: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-14 Thread Florin Iucha
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 04:57:01PM -0600, wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 10:54:34AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > It's still possible that this is hardware related; perhaps some component > > just began to wear out. If you return to an earlier kernel, does the > > problem go away? > > As repor

Re: [linux-usb-devel] 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-14 Thread Florin Iucha
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 10:54:34AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > It's still possible that this is hardware related; perhaps some component > just began to wear out. If you return to an earlier kernel, does the > problem go away? As reported in my original e-mail and verified just minutes ago, the c

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-11 Thread Nick Piggin
Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote: Hello On Thursday 11 January 2007 04:00, Nick Piggin wrote: That's racy, unfortunately :P Sorry, please, explain what is racy. reiserfs_truncate and reiserfs_release call that function after they have inode's mutex locked. Calling truncate inside i_size (ie.

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-11 Thread Vladimir V. Saveliev
Hello On Thursday 11 January 2007 04:00, Nick Piggin wrote: > Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote: > > Hello > > > > On Tuesday 09 January 2007 21:30, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > >>On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Malte Schröder wrote: > >> > So something interesting is definitely going on, but I don't know exact

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v3)

2007-01-11 Thread CIJOML
I all, I can't work on this until 23.2.2007 because of my diploma thesis. But my opinion is - if you make a release with this bug, you'll see more reporters soon. It can be than fixed in 2.6.20.1 - I haven't find any data corruptions yet. Michal Dne čtvrtek 11 leden 2007 11:54 Adrian Bunk na

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v3)

2007-01-11 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 11:21:23AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > >Subject: BUG: at fs/inotify.c:172 set_dentry_child_flags() > > > >References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7785 > > > >Submitter : Cijoml Cijomlovic Cijomlov <[EMAIL

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v3)

2007-01-11 Thread Jiri Kosina
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > >Subject: BUG: at fs/inotify.c:172 set_dentry_child_flags() > > >References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7785 > > >Submitter : Cijoml Cijomlovic Cijomlov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Handled-By : John McCutchan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >S

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v3)

2007-01-11 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 05:43:55PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > >Subject: BUG: at fs/inotify.c:172 set_dentry_child_flags() > >References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7785 > >Submitter : Cijoml Cijomlovic Cijomlov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Handled-By : John

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v3)

2007-01-10 Thread Nick Piggin
Adrian Bunk wrote: Subject: BUG: at fs/inotify.c:172 set_dentry_child_flags() References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7785 Submitter : Cijoml Cijomlovic Cijomlov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Handled-By : John McCutchan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status : problem is being debugged I'm

2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v3)

2007-01-10 Thread Adrian Bunk
This email lists some known regressions in 2.6.20-rc4 compared to 2.6.19 that are not yet fixed in Linus' tree. If you find your name in the Cc header, you are either submitter of one of the bugs, maintainer of an affectected subsystem or driver, a patch of you caused a breakage or I'm considering

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-10 Thread Nick Piggin
Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote: Hello On Tuesday 09 January 2007 21:30, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Malte Schröder wrote: So something interesting is definitely going on, but I don't know exactly what it is. Why does reiserfs do the truncate as part of a close, if the same inode is

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-10 Thread Vladimir V. Saveliev
Hello On Tuesday 09 January 2007 21:30, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Malte Schröder wrote: > > > > > So something interesting is definitely going on, but I don't know exactly > > > what it is. Why does reiserfs do the truncate as part of a close, if the > > > same inode is actua

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-09 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:58:19AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > Subject : BUG: at mm/truncate.c:60 cancel_dirty_page() (reiserfs) > > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/7/117 > > Submitter : Malte Schröder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Statu

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-09 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Malte Schröder wrote: > > > So something interesting is definitely going on, but I don't know exactly > > what it is. Why does reiserfs do the truncate as part of a close, if the > > same inode is actually mapped somewhere else? And if it's a race with two > > different CPU's

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-09 Thread Malte Schröder
On Tuesday 09 January 2007 18:58, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Subject : BUG: at mm/truncate.c:60 cancel_dirty_page() (reiserfs) > > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/7/117 > > Submitter : Malte Schröder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Status : unknown > > Adri

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-09 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Subject : BUG: at mm/truncate.c:60 cancel_dirty_page() (reiserfs) > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/7/117 > Submitter : Malte Schröder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Status : unknown Adrian, this is also available as http://lkml.org/lkml/200

2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

2007-01-08 Thread Adrian Bunk
This email lists some known regressions in 2.6.20-rc4 compared to 2.6.19 that are not yet fixed in Linus' tree. If you find your name in the Cc header, you are either submitter of one of the bugs, maintainer of an affectected subsystem or driver, a patch of you caused a breakage or I'm considering

Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions

2007-01-07 Thread Bernhard Schmidt
Adrian Bunk wrote: This email lists some known regressions in 2.6.20-rc4 compared to 2.6.19. Subject: netfilter conntrack Oopses References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/4/156 Netfilter bugzilla #528 https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=528 fixed, I think the patch i

2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions

2007-01-07 Thread Adrian Bunk
This email lists some known regressions in 2.6.20-rc4 compared to 2.6.19. If you find your name in the Cc header, you are either submitter of one of the bugs, maintainer of an affectected subsystem or driver, a patch of you caused a breakage or I'm considering you in any other way possibly involve