Received: from oss.sgi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g5TFgCnC005173
	for <linux-xfs-outgoing@oss.sgi.com>; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 08:42:12 -0700
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g5TFgCPL005172
	for linux-xfs-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 08:42:12 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: oss.sgi.com: majordomo set sender to owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com using -f
Received: from deliverator.sgi.com (deliverator.SGI.COM [204.94.214.10] (may be forged))
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g5TFg6nC005144
	for <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 08:42:06 -0700
Received: from relay1.corp.sgi.com (spindle.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.13]) 
	by deliverator.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam:
       SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary
       systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email
       from the Internet.) 
	via ESMTP id IAA01842
	for <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 08:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
	mail_from (sandeen@sgi.com)
Received: from liberator (sshgate.corp.sgi.com [169.238.216.146]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id IAA50931; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 08:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Bug about XFS-1.0.1 on 2.4.5
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sgi.com>
To: Eric Mei <eric@mountainviewdata.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
In-Reply-To: <3D1D647F.3070302@mountainviewdata.com>
References: <3D1D647F.3070302@mountainviewdata.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.7 
Date: 29 Jun 2002 11:45:13 -0400
Message-Id: <1025365517.20112.18.camel@Liberator>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MAY_BE_FORGED version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: 
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 03:40, Eric Mei wrote:
> Hi Team,
> 
> This is a long report. I know some of you might be busy on kernel
> summit, we just can's believe XFS has such a serious bug. 

s/has/had/

> For some reason, we must stick on 2.4.5-xfs-1.0.1.

You're essentially saying that you must stick with old, (apparently)
buggy code.  We simply don't have the bandwidth to support xfs & kernel
code from 1 year ago.

Your best bet would be to look through the mailing list archives to see
if anyone has had a similar problem, and see if a mod was checked in to
fix it; then try to backport that fix.

http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/mail_archive/200108/msg00307.html

This thread makes it sound like it may well be an underlying kernel
problem with 2.4.5-era kernels.

-Eric