On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 11:41:23AM -0600, Dan Yocum wrote:
> I just took a look at the extra lvm patch (v1.0.7) that Axel has added to
> his AT kernel. It's touching fs/buffer.c and fs/super.c as well as
> [reiser|ext3]/[buffer.c|super.c] but nothing in the xfs tree. Since two of
Hmmm.. not sure what patch that is - maybe the VFS locking patch
for LVM snapshots? If so, its unlikely to be the cause here.
> I'm going to give Jan-Frode's kernel a go and see if it's got the same
Does that mean you have a reliable failure/test case?
If not, could you try to characterise your workloads a
bit for me and maybe we can find a pattern of activity
thats more likely to trigger it.
Any xfs_check/xfs_repair info too?