From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:46:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m1J1k4vT019342 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:46:07 -0800 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:46:19 +1100 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: Differences in mkfs.xfs and xfs_info output. Message-ID: <20080219014619.GY155407@sgi.com> References: <20080216074019.GV155407@sgi.com> <20080217230645.GY155407@sgi.com> <20080219002059.GX155407@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Jan Derfinak Cc: David Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:20:42AM +0100, Jan Derfinak wrote: > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, David Chinner wrote: > > > > > The output I showed you was from an ia64 machine, so it's not > > purely 64bit related. > > > > Can you rebuild you x86_64 kernel from the same kernel > > tree you built the ia32 (make mrproper; make ....) and reinstall > > it and see if the still exists? > > Done, but the problem still exists. > # xfs_check /dev/loop0 > sb_fdblocks 253756, counted 254780 > > Dave, when you tested on ia64, did you use mkfs.xfs which wrote feature2 > record on right place or did you use your patch to correct feature2 on > mount? Because I use mkfs.xfs patched with Eric Sandeen patch on x86_64 to > create FS which really has lazy-count=1. I did not use a patched mkfs - just my patch that does correction. I think I need to test this on an x86_64 box and see if i can reproduce it locally because it's not obviously operator error or clearly an 32/64bit problem... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group