Re: BTW: 2.4.19-patches-to-come?

[Oleg Drokin <green@namesys.com>]

Hello!

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 09:44:21PM +0200, Dieter N?tzel wrote:

> > BTW, Was that you with a kernel with lot of patches applied, or
> > you do not use anything strange on your workstations?
> Yes, but it happen with and without data logging, preemption, aa_VM, etc.
> I can reproduce it with some "new" page coloring stuff (only).
> When I modprobe the page coloring module (it is under development) the system 
> lookup from time to time during heavy (parallel) compilation for example.
> Then I get the broken files.

Well, sounds like page colouring stuff mistakenly writes some pages in wrong
location, no?
If you cannot reproduce without page colouring patch, that would be the most
probably theory, I'd say.

> > File was created, written into. So file appears after reboot (if
> > transaction in which it was created was commited).
> Maybe the FS should have some knowledge "build in" to "decide" that *.o files 
> are "temper?r" and should be removed during replay?

No, there is absolutely no way for such kludges to go into the FS, I think.
And it even may be the case where .o file was created, commited, and then
journal record obsoletted, because metadata got it's way to the disk,
so file is already in place (without the body, or with garbage instead
of the body), but it have nothing to do with journal.

> > BTW, I have a feeling that datalogging patches would help to get rid of
> > garbage in the files, but files still will remain (may be of zero length).
> Yes, Chris said this, too.

He said it will help your problem, I think. But zero length .o files will
still confuse linker.

Bye,
    Oleg