Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*mmap\s+vs\s+mtime\s+in\s+2\.6\.26\s+and\s+up\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*mmap\s+vs\s+mtime\s+in\s+2\.6\.26\s+and\s+up\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Re: mmap vs mtime in 2.6.26 and up (score: 1): Author: Ray Lee <ray-lk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:37:43 -0700; (Adding Christoph Hellwig, xfs list, Andrew Morton to cc:) I don't think that's expected. Further, the test program (v3) from that bugzilla http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2645 works for m; /archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00075.html (11,697 bytes)
2. Re: mmap vs mtime in 2.6.26 and up (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:53:01 -0400; The problem is pretty simple. do_wp_page and __do_fault use file_update_time to update ctime and mtime. But this function is only a helper for simply filesystems that have a binary inode dirty/non di; /archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00076.html (8,800 bytes)
3. Re: mmap vs mtime in 2.6.26 and up (score: 1): Author: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 18:40:29 +0200; Thanks for the analysis. Unfortunately I don't nearly know enough to work on this issue, but would like to track it as it affects our backup system. So, shouldn't #2645 be reopened again? -- Feri.; /archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00126.html (9,805 bytes)
4. Re: mmap vs mtime in 2.6.26 and up (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 12:50:54 -0400; Yes, definitively as the current "fix" is incorrected. I'll try to cook up a correct version once I get some time.; /archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00127.html (8,720 bytes)
5. Re: mmap vs mtime in 2.6.26 and up (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 07:43:05 -0400; Doing this correctly in the framework of the current codee is unfortunately not so easy, as calling ->setattr requires taking i_mutex which we can't in the pagefaul path. To fix this properly we need; /archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00148.html (8,699 bytes)
6. Re: mmap vs mtime in 2.6.26 and up (score: 1): Author: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:52:09 +0200; Hi Christoph, http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2645#c53 shows that Anton doesn't quite agree with you on this. I really can't tell, would you (or anybody from the accused XFS community) ple; /archives/xfs/2009-07/msg00229.html (8,631 bytes)
7. Re: mmap vs mtime in 2.6.26 and up (score: 1): Author: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:47:42 +0200; I added some fresh test results to http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2645. In short, under 2.6.30-rc8 the test program reports full failure on XFS and RAMFS, full success on EXT3, VFAT and R; /archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00217.html (9,865 bytes)
8. Re: mmap vs mtime in 2.6.26 and up (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 09:10:43 -0400; There's a patch queued up for inclusion in 2.6.32 to work around this issue in XFS. The lack of a proper callout from the VFS still makes this a much less than ideal solution.; /archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00221.html (8,307 bytes)
9. Re: mmap vs mtime in 2.6.26 and up (score: 1): Author: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:08:22 +0200; Great, anyway! Somehow I managed to gloss over this mail until now, but happened to test 2.6.32-rc4 and found the issue fixed. At least for XFS, as my latest addition to the bug report details it. Th; /archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00149.html (8,628 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]