* Stephen C. Tweedie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 19:38, Chris Wright wrote:
>
> > OK, good to know. When I last checked you were working on a higher risk
> > yet more complete fix, and I thought we'd wait for that one to stabilize.
> > Looks like the one Jan attached is the
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 19:38, Chris Wright wrote:
> OK, good to know. When I last checked you were working on a higher risk
> yet more complete fix, and I thought we'd wait for that one to stabilize.
> Looks like the one Jan attached is the better -stable candidate?
Definitely; it's the one
* Stephen C. Tweedie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 10:39, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > Actually the patch you atached showed in the end as not covering all
> > the cases and so Stephen agreed to stay with the first try (attached)
> > which should cover all known cases (alt
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 10:39, Jan Kara wrote:
> Actually the patch you atached showed in the end as not covering all
> the cases and so Stephen agreed to stay with the first try (attached)
> which should cover all known cases (although it's not so nice).
Right. The later patch is getting r
Hi,
> Looks like you need to apply the attached patch (for the current
> bk kernel or see the link below for an earlier version (which
> will require some modification to remove implicit warnings, see
> to extern and prototype declarations for __journal_temp_unlink_buffer
> in attached patch).
Mark Wong wrote:
I originally reported this to the linuxppc64-dev list, since I made it
happen on a POWER system. I'm told this might be more generic...
Anyone run into something like this?
Mark
If i'm not wrong I think I have had something around the same place "ext3
journalling":
1)
The kjourn
Hi Mark
Looks like you need to apply the attached patch (for the current
bk kernel or see the link below for an earlier version (which
will require some modification to remove implicit warnings, see
to extern and prototype declarations for __journal_temp_unlink_buffer
in attached patch).
Looking
Hi,
> I originally reported this to the linuxppc64-dev list, since I made it
> happen on a POWER system. I'm told this might be more generic...
>
> Anyone run into something like this?
Just in case it got lost in the rest of the xmon output... We hit a BUG():
kernel BUG in submit_bh at fs/buf
8 matches
Mail list logo
