From: Valerie Clement Subject: Re: qla2xxx BUG: workqueue leaked lock or atomic Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:23:28 +0100 Message-ID: <45F65F80.7050202@bull.net> References: <20070226182617.GC9968@andrew-vasquezs-computer.local> <20070227101100.GA22572@skl-net.de> <20070227185134.GJ20397@andrew-vasquezs-computer.local> <20070228151829.GI22572@skl-net.de> <20070228153722.GJ22572@skl-net.de> <20070306203952.471218df.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070307170955.GA4252@skl-net.de> <20070307114525.08265c33.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1173297911.3769.3.camel@dyn9047017103.beaverton.ibm.com> <45F57034.2020402@bull.net> <20070313070134.GK5266@schatzie.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Andre Noll , Theodore Tso , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from ecfrec.frec.bull.fr ([129.183.4.8]:40514 "EHLO ecfrec.frec.bull.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965424AbXCMIXu (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:23:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070313070134.GK5266@schatzie.adilger.int> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Mar 12, 2007 16:22 +0100, Valerie Clement wrote: >> Mingming Cao wrote: >>> IBM has done some testing (dbench, fsstress, fsx, tiobench, iozone = etc) >>> on 10TB ext3, I think RedHat and BULL have done similar test on >8T= B >>> ext3 too. >> Is there not a problem of backward-compatibility with old kernels? >> Doesn't we need to handle a new INCOMPAT flag in e2fsprogs and kerne= l >> before allowing ext3 filesystems greater than 8T? >=20 > No, it really depends on the kernel. There were some bugs that cause= d > problems with > 8TB because of signed 32-bit int problems, so it isn'= t > really recommended to use > 8TB unless you know this is fixed in your > kernel (and any older kernel you might have to downgrade to). >=20 OK. Thanks. As Andre mentions it, it seems that the option "-F" for mkfs is=20 necessary to create an ext3 FS > 8T. (I've got the same behavior but I didn't apply the latest patches=20 against my current version of e2fsprogs, so I can't check if that has=20 changed since). Is it the right way? Val=E9rie