xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: another bug

To: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: another bug
From: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 09:32:52 -0500
Cc: Daniel Moore <dxm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Message from Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@sgi.com> of "Thu, 08 Jun 2000 20:54:16 PDT." <39406A68.39070868@sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Daniel Moore wrote:
> > 
> > (still working on the stress tests - they seem to be doing the trick)
> > 
> > I'm seeing some funny messages from xfs_zero_last_block
> > 
> > => xfs_zero_last_block: unwritten?
> > => xfs_zero_last_block: We want DELWRI? not waiting?
> > 
> > just before the page_buf panics
> > 
> > => delalloc page 0xc106951c with no extent kernel BUG at page_buf.c:5275!
> 
> 
> This looks to be a problem in handling UNWRITTEN extents,
> and this one seems to be an UNWRITTEN at that contains EOF (hmm).
> 
> Don't know the right fix to this one, but you can try avoiding
> this bug by creating the FS without support for unwritten:
> I believe the option is "-d unwritten=0" to mkfs_xfs.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan ("ananth")
> Member Technical Staff, SGI.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------


We should really have unwritten extents turned off - probably should change
mkfs to default to off as well. We do not have code to handle them properly
yet.

Steve



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>