Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:59:30 +1000 From: Jan Mikkelsen <janm@transactionware.com> To: Tom Curry <thomasrcurry@gmail.com> Cc: Mark Saad <nonesuch@longcount.org>, "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: L2ARC and pool corruption Message-ID: <39E7A9FD-38BA-48E4-9718-C32AB4712C31@transactionware.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGtEZUB6H6Y6wgkD3RP%2BvCs7c8MFw_8oKmUPnbaGR%2BoVBkMf6Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA%2Bo5Y=1L9_qdrPZs5G=z7ZH01MLpCMEGEPAQ6G8nTPcd1uzUNA@mail.gmail.com> <76AD038E-4D72-48BB-8A3B-BD9BD76F9350@longcount.org> <A2E9DD95-745C-4447-990C-189A184C1542@longcount.org> <CAGtEZUB2M9Aqkfg6Hs6MDOQ4F_VbqYHXZO9wYp76FQEPouWr4g@mail.gmail.com> <09E1F540-C9E6-4193-851E-5F935D97763F@transactionware.com> <CAGtEZUB6H6Y6wgkD3RP%2BvCs7c8MFw_8oKmUPnbaGR%2BoVBkMf6Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 14 Sep 2015, at 10:49, Tom Curry <thomasrcurry@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Jan Mikkelsen = <janm@transactionware.com <mailto:janm@transactionware.com>> wrote: >=20 > > On 13 Sep 2015, at 01:21, Tom Curry <thomasrcurry@gmail.com = <mailto:thomasrcurry@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Mark Saad <nonesuch@longcount.org = <mailto:nonesuch@longcount.org>> wrote: > > > >> All > >> I forgot to include my question . In any case Ryan and I were = talking > >> about this issue at work and I was wondering if and how this issue = would > >> effect the FreeBSD implementation of zfs . I didn't see any commits = that > >> appear to address this . > >> > >> --- > >> Mark Saad | nonesuch@longcount.org <mailto:nonesuch@longcount.org> > >> > >> > > = https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commit/0ab19d08a4167c4e486420d8ea4ec596= 8cbc4f42 = <https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commit/0ab19d08a4167c4e486420d8ea4ec59= 68cbc4f42> > > > > Looks like it was merged into head 5 hours ago. >=20 > Does this update need to be applied to stable/10 or 10.2 systems as = well? >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Jan Mikkelsen. >=20 >=20 > When I looked yesterday it had only been applied to head. It seems = like a simple enough patch for other trees. OK, so it=E2=80=99s a necessary patch for other trees? I=E2=80=99ll = apply it on our local copy, but for data corruption issues like this it = seems like an MFC or a patch to a release branch would be good. Regards, Jan.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39E7A9FD-38BA-48E4-9718-C32AB4712C31>