From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:14:34 -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 m6E4EOIq015959 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:14:25 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D2C24E0884E for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id FONojpJFcV6kgk0U for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <487AD2E1.6030704@sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:15:29 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfs leaking? References: <4877928A.1020008@sandeen.net> <20080711233832.GH11558@disturbed> <4877FC4F.7020906@sandeen.net> <487810BE.5050701@sandeen.net> <487AD102.9020306@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <487AD102.9020306@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: markgw@sgi.com Cc: xfs-oss Mark Goodwin wrote: > > Eric Sandeen wrote: >> 2.6.26-rc9 passed without incident. > > So what is the conclusion here? Because you just down-rev? Or do we have > an intermittent leak of some kind? haven't yet re-tested on -rc2... not 100% sure yet. So far I'd be willing to chalk it up to something wrong in -rc2. -Eric