Subject: Re: Filesystem corruption

From: Ralf Baechle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 02:02:41 -0800

On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 03:20:35PM +0100, Carsten Langgaard wrote:

> Has anyone seen problems with fsck on the latest 2.4.0 kernel ?
> My filesystem gets corrupted from time to time when I use the latest
> 2.4.0 kernel.

2.4.1 is known to cause fs corruption for all architectures; 2.4.0 should
actually be fine.  I just reached 8 days of uptime on a 32p Origin 2000,
so it can't be that bad.

  Ralf

---

From: Alan Cox <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:10:37 +0000 (GMT)

> actually be fine.  I just reached 8 days of uptime on a 32p Origin 2000,

Im tracking fs corruption and worse on 2.4.0 as well (zero page corruptions
since 2.4.0test10 for example)

I dont believe any 2.4 is currently 'safe'

---

From: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:56:53 +0100 (MET)

> since 2.4.0test10 for example)

Is the zero page mapped on non-m68k architectures?

> I dont believe any 2.4 is currently 'safe'

Ugh...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email-masked]

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

---

From: Alan Cox <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:01:33 +0000 (GMT)

> Is the zero page mapped on non-m68k architectures?

It can certainly be hit by DMA and kernel memory ops

> > I dont believe any 2.4 is currently 'safe'

We'll get there, its doing pretty well for most folks

---

From: Ralf Baechle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:01:14 -0800

> We'll get there, its doing pretty well for most folks

I hope so.  For many of us 2.2 is no longer an option.  That is at least
without heavy patching to add support for hardware that isn't supported
by 2.2.

  Ralf