On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 08:10 +0900, Jens Axboe wrote:
> It looks like that if we need to restart the requeue, then
> we use the initial position and not the current index. Does
> this help?
>
> diff --git a/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c b/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c
> index 1bcd208..81ee063 100644
> -
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 16:20 +0100, Bram Matthys (Syzop) wrote:
> Unfortunately, here it does not seem to work.
> This patch included everything for the fix, right? I didn't need both this one
> and the 2.6.33-rc6.diff ? They seem very very similar anyway...
Yes, you only need the latest diff.
>
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 11:37 +0100, Matthias Rieber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried the kernel 2.6.33 and I still have the data corruption problems.
> When I remount the partition with the sync option and repeat the test,
> all files seem to be intact. I'm using an ext3 filesystem on a lvm
> volume for
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:13 +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We maintain an UML kernel in OpenWrt and I wanted to update to 2.6.32.9 and
> ran into a segfault directly from the start:
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x0821db5f in __libc_setup_tls ()
>
> This u
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 17:40 +0100, Bram Matthys (Syzop) wrote:
> attempt to access beyond end of device
> ubda: rw=0, want=7390279568, limit=4096000
> attempt to access beyond end of device
> ubda: rw=0, want=26462532144, limit=4096000
> [many many more]
>
> INSIDE VM:
> # df
> Filesystem
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 19:25 +0100, Matthias Rieber wrote:
> This happens with 2.6.32.8 and .9 (9 with the fixed rlimit patch). Is
> this a know issue? Wrong kernel config?
>
> matthias
Hi Matthias,
Yes, there is an issue with integrity of ubd block operations in kernels
later than v2.6.30-rc1.
