xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs 1.3.1 patch for kernel 2.4.19?

To: Junfeng Yang <yjf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs 1.3.1 patch for kernel 2.4.19?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 11:09:46 -0500
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0408032054300.2851-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs
References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0408032054300.2851-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Junfeng - 

Hm, pity you're using such an old kernel.  :)  We'd be happy to have you
check xfs though, thanks - let me see what I can do about getting recent
xfs code into 2.4.19....

-Eric

On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 23:05, Junfeng Yang wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm a Ph.D. student in Prof. Dawson Engler's checking group.  Currently
> our group is working on a file system checking tool.  We've checked ext3,
> IBM JFS and reiserfs and found serious bugs in all of them.  We would like
> to check XFS since it is even more widely used.  Unfortunately the kernel
> that we based our checker on is 2.4.19, and I couldn't find a 1.3.1 core
> patch for 2.4.19.  I tried to apply linux-2.4.21-core-xfs-1.3.1.patch but
> 12 hunks failed. I'm wondering if you guys have a 2.4.19 xfs-1.3.1 core
> patch that I can download.
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> -Junfeng
-- 
Eric Sandeen      [C]XFS for Linux   http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
sandeen@xxxxxxx   SGI, Inc.          651-683-3102


rom owner-linux-xfs Wed Aug  4 09:34:44 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Wed, 04 Aug 2004 09:34:51 
-0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-h12-02.cc.ksu.edu (mail-h12-02.cc.ksu.edu [129.130.12.151])
        by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i74GYhs7030171
        for <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:34:44 -0700
Received: from unix2.cc.ksu.edu (unix2.cc.ksu.edu [129.130.12.4])
        by mail-h12-02.cc.ksu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i74GYVfY018755;
        Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:34:35 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (matts@localhost)
        by unix2.cc.ksu.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i74GYV310756;
        Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:34:31 -0500 (CDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: unix2.cc.ksu.edu: matts owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:34:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: Matt Stegman <matts@xxxxxxx>
X-X-Sender: matts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Jan Banan <b@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Recover a XFS on raid -1 (linear) when one disk is broken
In-Reply-To: <4110E5FF.3070203@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44L.0408041132100.11129-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.71, clamav-milter version 0.71
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-archive-position: 3836
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-original-sender: matts@xxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
X-list: linux-xfs

Because fdisk is reporting kilobytes (blocks of 1024 bytes) while
the kernel is reporting 512 byte sectors.

-- 
Matt Stegman

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Jan Banan wrote:
> There is one thing that seem strange to me. "fdisk -l /dev/hdh" (the
> damaged harddisk) says
>
>      /dev/hdh1             1     30515 245111706   83  Linux
>
> But now "dd" is working with sectors above 245111706, how is that
> possible? Right now it seem to be at 244536664 according to
> /var/log/messages:
>
> Aug  4 15:32:56 d kernel: hdh: dma_intr: status=0x51 { DriveReady
>       SeekComplete Error }
> Aug  4 15:32:56 d kernel: hdh: dma_intr: error=0x40 { UncorrectableError
>       }, LBAsect=244536735, high=14, low=9655711, sector=244536672
> Aug  4 15:32:56 d kernel: end_request: I/O error, dev 22:41 (hdh),
>       sector 244536672


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>