Re: qla2xxx BUG: workqueue leaked lock or atomic

[Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@bull.net>]

Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2007  16:22 +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
>> Mingming Cao wrote:
>>> IBM has done some testing (dbench, fsstress, fsx, tiobench, iozone etc)
>>> on 10TB ext3, I think RedHat and BULL have done similar test on >8TB
>>> ext3 too.
>> Is there not a problem of backward-compatibility with old kernels?
>> Doesn't we need to handle a new INCOMPAT flag in e2fsprogs and kernel
>> before allowing ext3 filesystems greater than 8T?
> 
> No, it really depends on the kernel.  There were some bugs that caused
> problems with > 8TB because of signed 32-bit int problems, so it isn't
> really recommended to use > 8TB unless you know this is fixed in your
> kernel (and any older kernel you might have to downgrade to).
> 

OK. Thanks.
As Andre mentions it, it seems that the option "-F" for mkfs is 
necessary to create an ext3 FS > 8T.
(I've got the same behavior but I didn't apply the latest patches 
against my current version of e2fsprogs, so I can't check if that has 
changed since).
Is it the right way?

     Valérie