From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266654AbUGVAed (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:34:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266660AbUGVAed (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:34:33 -0400 Received: from pimout1-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.77]:55249 "EHLO pimout1-ext.prodigy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266654AbUGVAeb (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:34:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:33:57 -0700 From: Chris Wedgwood To: L A Walsh Cc: Linux-Kernel , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: 2.6.7-vanilla-SMP kernel: pagebuf_get: failed to lookup pages Message-ID: <20040722003357.GA31163@taniwha.stupidest.org> References: <40FF0479.6050509@tlinx.org> <20040722001224.GC30595@taniwha.stupidest.org> <40FF0885.7060704@tlinx.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40FF0885.7060704@tlinx.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:21:25PM -0700, L A Walsh wrote: > Will this be included/fixed in 2.6.8? i assume that's the intention but i don't know when 2.6.8 is and how much time the sgi people have before then. my guess is yes though > How serious is the problem? The system doesn't seem to panic or > indicate backup failures. not sure, hch can you comment here maybe? > Setting up a CVS tree to get a patch for a "stable-series" kernel > seems a bit unstable. CVS is "stable linux releases + XFS fixes" --- it's really not that bad (whilst i personally don't use it, my tree is derieved from it and i don't have problems) > I'm not sure what I'd pull in besides the fix or even if I'd pull > down a coherent/stable CVS image if I downloaded in the middle of > when some other patch was being checked in. cd path/to/workarea cvs -qz9 -d :pserver:cvs@oss.sgi.com:/cvs co linux-2.6-xfs cd linux-2.6-xfs cp path/to/old/.config .config make oldconfig make ... > Maybe I'm sounding like a wimp, but the idea of pulling in freshly > checked in CVS code for use on a 'stable' machine is bordering on my > discomfort zone. :-) FWIW, the CVS tree isn't freshly checked in, it's a reflection of the internal ptools tree where in theory you shouldn't get adhoc checkins like lots of places (but yeah, it does sometimes break but not usually badly). Anyhow, if you don't like it you can (1) ingnore the problems (2) use official binary releases from vendors (3) use ext3, etc. whatever works for you... --cw