From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m6A59HTe000829 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:09:18 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 7E11DDE2D4B for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id yq28ENG8xegpG2EE for ; Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <487599BD.2040003@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:10:21 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] re-remove xfs custom bitops References: <480EB397.1040304@sandeen.net> <4829C360.5060500@sandeen.net> <482BF841.8050704@sgi.com> <48669A45.1050104@sandeen.net> <4868A114.9080106@sgi.com> <486C322D.7080203@sandeen.net> <486C75DD.2040109@sgi.com> <48759813.2080601@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <48759813.2080601@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Donald Douwsma Cc: xfs-oss Donald Douwsma wrote: > Donald Douwsma wrote: >> Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> Donald Douwsma wrote: >>> >>>> First time round I hit an Oops on xfstests/177 while running the auto >>>> group >>>> on ppc32. I dont seem to hit it running the single test, its >>>> intermittent. >>> Funky. Do you ever hit it w/ the patch reverted? >> That's the question. So far no, the QA guys said they hit it a while >> ago, but the time frame still matches last time. I dont think this >> is related but I need to get some more ppc32 runs without. >> >> I'm probably being over cautious but I'd like to avoid the >> inagain/outagain/inagain/outagain approach we keep using with >> some of these cleanups. >> >> Don >> > > Ok I hit the Oops again last weekend without the patch. > Which means I have a patch to checkin and another bug to fix Yea! > > Dave, Eric said this should still be considered signed-off-by you, > You ok with that? > Eric, am I ok to add yours too since you kept this on the radar? That's fine by me, thanks. -Eric