From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2992599AbXDLP7t (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:59:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2992602AbXDLP7t (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:59:49 -0400 Received: from eazy.amigager.de ([213.239.192.238]:43925 "EHLO eazy.amigager.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992600AbXDLP7s (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:59:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:59:46 +0200 From: Tino Keitel To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] UDF cleanup and fixes Message-ID: <20070412155946.GA7613@dose.home.local> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20070306164447.GC3661@duck.suse.cz> <20070330045923.GA5528@dose.home.local> <460D51AA.2080307@redhat.com> <20070331094631.GA24220@thinkpad.home.local> <461117BB.5040705@redhat.com> <20070404063620.GA5465@dose.home.local> <20070412160112.GD23348@duck.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070412160112.GD23348@duck.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 18:01:12 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 04-04-07 08:36:20, Tino Keitel wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:48:27 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Well, it works for me on 32-bit as well, right up to 100% full. > > > No problems at all... > > > > Maybe it depends on the kernel. I patched 2.6.20 with the patches > > above and got the described behaviour. > I've sent you an email with a few questions but probably it got lost in > the noise... Are you able to reproduce the problem? Have you reproduced the > problem on a freshly created UDF image or was it some older image? Hi, I can't remember of any errors in the kernel or about not available space. It was an image file that I expermimented with, and I did multiple mkudffs runs on the file. Could it be that the behaviour was caused by stale data inside the image? Regards, Tino