From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p57DmgZY026373 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 08:48:42 -0500 Received: from server655-han.de-nserver.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A8B0E1ED5D66 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 06:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server655-han.de-nserver.de (server655-han.de-nserver.de [85.158.177.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 0LKuljsfZ8gWXh1F for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 06:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DEE2C36.8030008@profihost.ag> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:48:38 +0200 From: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: XFS: accounting of reclaimable inodes is incorrect References: <4DEE0EA4.9090002@profihost.ag> <20110607115441.GA4653@infradead.org> <4DEE2078.3010102@profihost.ag> <20110607133429.GA9049@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20110607133429.GA9049@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Am 07.06.2011 15:34, schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 02:58:32PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: > Linux 2.6.32 isn't really something supported by us. It's not just a > very old codebase, but also one where a lot of the XFS code was pretty > much in flux. If you want supported old releases work use one of > the commercially supported one like RedHat or SuSE. OK so my thought was totally wrong. I thought the longterm stable releases will still get bugfixed by SGI or whoever wrote the stuff. Sorry for that then. But what is then the idea of a longterm stable? >> Redhat seems to have fixed it on it's own: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642680 > > I suspect the upstream commit you want is > 081003fff467ea0e727f66d5d435b4f473a789b3, but I can't gurantee this > actually applies to the 2.6.32 codebase. No it doesn't. I already tried to implement it into current 2.6.32.41 code. Greets Stefan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs