On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Jorg de Jong wrote:
> > >On 13 Dec 2000, Henrik [ISO-8859-1] Størner wrote:
> > >
> > >> Just to add a "me too" on this. I didn't report when I saw it last week,
>
> I'd like to second that. ME TOO !
> Since I switched to 2.4.0.test12 I again have the innd bug.
> ( well at least the same symptoms !)
Guys, what blocksize are you using? BTW, old testcase was
cat >foo.c <<EOF
#include <unistd.h>
main(argc,argv)
int argc;
char **argv;
{
int fd;
char c=0;
truncate(argv[1], 10);
fd = open(argv[1], 1);
lseek(fd, 16384, 0);
write(fd, &c, 1);
close(fd);
}
EOF
gcc foo.c
./a.out /tmp/something_old
od -c </tmp/something_old
where something_old would be something not touched for long (i.e.
completely out of cache). Buggy kernels would leave much more than
10 non-zero bytes. Correct result is a file with bytes 11-16385 being zero.
I doubt that it would be the same beast, though...
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 21:00:20 EST