On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Gordan Bobic <gordan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2.6 kernels don't have fixups defaulting to on. I think Chris was meaning that on Fedora released kernels we've had it defaulted to on. > And it's a lot more expensive. I prefect expense over corrupted filesystems or other equally not nice situations. > Just because there is an expensive workaround doesn't mean it's not a bug. And arguably even with hardware fixup it's still a bug and appallingly bad practice. I don't disagree but then the Fedora ARM SIG is not about development and changes of e2fsprogs and if that is what you're wishing to discuss here the discussion should likely be taken to the upstream e2fsprogs list. > Let's not sweep this under the carpet, especially in something as critical as e2fsprogs. I'm not sure where you get the idea it's being swept under the carpet? There's a means of mitigation of the problem that is available already in the standard Fedora ARM kernels and has been for some time, and most of the rest of the discussion should be happening in the locations where it's better dealt with. Peter > Gordan > > Chris Tyler <chris@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 16:23 +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote: >>> This issue also affects SPARC and Itanium, IIRC, likely a lot of others, >>> too. It's only x86 and ARMv7+ that have transparent automatic alignment >>> fixup in hardware. >> >>On ARM <v7, there are software fixups via trap, which is basically the >>same as the hardware fixups but with a lot higher cost. For quite a few >>kernel releases, fixups have defaulted to ON. Are we sure there's still >>an issue here? >> >>-Chris >> > _______________________________________________ > arm mailing list > arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
