Re: vpf-10680, minor corruptions

[Oleg Drokin <green@namesys.com>]

Hello!

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 02:32:42PM +0200, Christian Kujau wrote:
> >Sigh, I have found what happens. And it will happen on every 64 bit 
> >platform with recent 2.5 kernel.
> >the internal reiserfs blocknumbers were referred to as 'unsigned long', 
> >that's where these
> >extra blocks of zeroes are from, this also explains all other anomalies.
> >Except when I make it 'unsigned int' as it ought to be, it still breaks,
> >only in some other way which I have not understood yet.
> >(yes, I seem to finally got our alpha to some working state and can do 
> >experiments locally now).
> this sound like good news, yes? hm, but when you say on every 64bit 
> platform with recent 2.5 kernels, i wonder again where all the 
> sparc64/ppc64/opteron/itanium guys are to report corruptions...

Nobody uses reiserfs on 64 bit arches on recent 2.5 kernels?
Or may be they have not noticed corruptions yet?

> compiling 2.5.72 with your patch is under way...

Thank you,
this is not needed already.
I was looking in the wrong direction, when I produced that patch,
so it will produce zero output.
I hope to come up with ultimate fix soon enough. ;)

Bye,
    Oleg