Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+filesystem\s+corruption\s+on\s+the\s+arm$el$\s+architecture\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+filesystem\s+corruption\s+on\s+the\s+arm$el$\s+architecture\s*$/: 63 ]

Total 63 documents matching your query.

21. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:22:44 +0200; Setting cachepolicy=uncached should make aliasing issues disappear. If you're still seeing issues with cachepolicy=uncached, it's likely some other issue.; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00371.html (11,154 bytes)
22. ead code from sv_t implementation (score: 1): Author: avid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:45:56 +1000; Adding xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx to the cc list so all the XFS folk see this. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00831.html (27,089 bytes)
23. quota flags (score: 1): Author: avid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:56:13 -0500; At one point there were other patches floating around to "fix" arm which were not correct. Are these problems seen on a pristine 2.6.27-rc4 kernel, or with other special arm patches applied? -Eric; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00832.html (10,652 bytes)
24. mber from struct xfs_mount (score: 1): Author: andeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:17:50 -0500; You could try undoing this: /* ARM old ABI has some weird alignment/padding */ and just define __arch_pack to nothing unconditionally, to see if that's what broke... Or if someone can provide an xfs.; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00833.html (11,359 bytes)
25. feature flag helpers (score: 1): Author: andeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:42:53 -0500; Ok, actually: first - sorry for the scattershot replies. I thought userspace was updated earlier, but: xfsprogs-2.10.1 (5 September 2008)... - Add packed on-disk shortform directory for ARM's old ABI; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00834.html (11,042 bytes)
26. nsaction headers in recovery (score: 1): Author: g <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:25:01 +0200; Hi Eric, I tried to reproduce this problem on my ARM machine and it's really easy to trigger. See the transcript below. I tried with 2.6.26.6 (without the ARM old ABI fix) and 2.6.27 (with the fix),; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01139.html (12,912 bytes)
27. st code drops (score: 1): Author: mayr <tbm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:13:51 -0500; Thanks; a quick look at the disk structure sizes & offsets shows no differences (as I'd hope/expect for ARM EABI). So is this a regression? did it used to work? If so, when? :) (just for the record;; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01140.html (14,767 bytes)
28. th unrecognized options (score: 1): Author: <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:01:09 +0200; * Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2008-10-16 17:13]: The original report was with 2.6.18 but that was with the old ABI: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=423562 I just installed a; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01157.html (10,906 bytes)
29. ans_cancel in 2.6.27 (score: 1): Author: mayr <tbm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:46:15 +0200; As far as I can remember (I only used old ABI arm) this is not a regression. XFS never worked on arm for me. If you need tests on old ABI just tell me. -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try agai; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01158.html (11,608 bytes)
30. _ERROR use - was Re: [PATCH] prevent NULL returns from d_obtain_alias (score: 1): Author: .beregalov@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:49:33 -0500; Ok; I think there are probably a few problems, so trying to keep them straight. I at least had xfs working properly in a qemu arm emulator a few weeks ago... :) ok, thanks! -Eric; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01162.html (11,467 bytes)
31. btain_alias (score: 1): Author: <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:15:43 -0500; Ok, that's a little odd. (correlates with the "bad" magic that was seen, because block 0 is the superblock, but doesn't make sense because we were trying to read a directory leaf block, in theory) If; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01163.html (12,795 bytes)
32. nux-next: Tree for October 17) (score: 1): Author: <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:57:56 +0200; * Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2008-10-17 09:15]: I cannot even mount it: debian:~# mkfs.xfs -f /dev/sda5 meta-data=/dev/sda5 isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=94380 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2 data =; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01172.html (12,211 bytes)
33. called from invalid context at kernel/rwsem.c:131 XFS? (was: Re: linux-next: Tree for October 17) (score: 1): Author: mayr <tbm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:11:14 +0200; I tried xfs both on the old and new ABI. (my first try was Jan 2008, old ABI) ASAIR at kernel version 2.6.18; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01173.html (11,496 bytes)
34. : Re: linux-next: Tree for October 17) (score: 1): Author: Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:48:57 -0500; Oh, wow. This sounds like a new problem then; not a cache problem, and not an alignment problem... hrm. I'll try to think of something else to try. Thanks, -Eric; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01178.html (11,192 bytes)
35. transcript for details (score: 1): Author: <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:48:53 +0300; You are wrong. Our team have experience with XFS on ARM OABI on NAS. It worked fine on 2.6.12, but got broken on 2.6.17. http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=712 -- Regards, Kirill A. Shutemov; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01179.html (12,230 bytes)
36. rom invalid context at kernel/rwsem.c:131 XFS? (was: Re: linux-next: Tree for October 17) (score: 1): Author: kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:09:39 -0400; So any chance to bisect it down to at least a kernel release where it stopped working?; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01180.html (11,451 bytes)
37. inux-next: Tree for October 17) (score: 1): Author: g <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:17:50 +0300; I'll try to do it. -- Regards, Kirill A. Shutemov + Belarus, Minsk + ALT Linux Team, http://www.altlinux.com/ Attachment: signature.asc Description: Digital signature; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01181.html (12,125 bytes)
38. ) architecture (score: 1): Author: <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:48:30 +1100; That's the log replay indicating that there's a bad transaction header in the log. Very strange - it shoul dbe a clean log. What does xfs_logprint -t /dev/sda5 tell you about the transactions in the; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01185.html (12,817 bytes)
39. ) architecture (score: 1): Author: <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:06:45 -0500; This is probably the vmap cache aliasing problem that we paid a bit of attention to a few months ago, no? -Eric; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01186.html (12,400 bytes)
40. t systems (score: 1): Author: <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 07:12:47 +0200; * Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2008-10-19 12:48]: mdebian:~# mkfs.xfs -f /dev/sda5 meta-data=/dev/sda5 isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=94380 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2 data = bsize=4096 blocks=37751; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01187.html (11,212 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]