fs corruption in 2.4.0-test11?

From: Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 19:47:42 EST

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Extreme IDE slowdown with 2.2.18"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: iptables: "stateful inspection?""
Next in thread: David Weinehall: "Re: fs corruption in 2.4.0-test11?"
Reply: David Weinehall: "Re: fs corruption in 2.4.0-test11?"
Maybe reply: Horst von Brand: "Re: fs corruption in 2.4.0-test11?"
Maybe reply: Horst von Brand: "Re: fs corruption in 2.4.0-test11?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I just need a sanity check - do other pages/blocks sometimes show up in
recently created files in 2.4.0-test11?

I have a (so far) non-reproducible case where the wrong data showed up in
a new file. The nice part is that it was when I was imploding a large
BitKeeper patch so I can run the test case over and over if that would
help find it.

-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Extreme IDE slowdown with 2.2.18"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: iptables: "stateful inspection?""
Next in thread: David Weinehall: "Re: fs corruption in 2.4.0-test11?"
Reply: David Weinehall: "Re: fs corruption in 2.4.0-test11?"
Maybe reply: Horst von Brand: "Re: fs corruption in 2.4.0-test11?"
Maybe reply: Horst von Brand: "Re: fs corruption in 2.4.0-test11?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 21:00:27 EST