Yep, it made it to the list...
I have never seen this sort of thing w/ xfs (last couple bytes missing)
Perhaps you can run xfs_repair -n on the filesystem, and see if it looks
ok?
Using gcc 3.x is no-mans land at the moment... different code in the
kernel could pressure the compiler in different ways, it's possible that a
bug popped up as a result.
-Eric
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> Ok. Either noone cared or this mail got lost.
>
> Could someone at least acknowledge reception?
>
> Thanx
>
> // Stefan
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Fatal filesystem bug?
> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 01:28:04 +0100
> From: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Hi people.
>
> I might have triggered a bug, but I haven't looked into where it's at.
> If it's the filesystem or the kernel.
>
> I downloaded the 2.4.15-pre7 kernel from cvs and I ran it for 24 hours
> about.
>
> Today I went into a directory to run a program and the binary was ..
> broken. Couldn't load.
>
> Tried recompiling from source and that failed too, so I looked at the
> source file and it was missing the end of the file.
> It was my source so I gather it was the last bytes that were missing.
> ------
> return(num_cpus);
> }
>
> ------
> became
> ------
> return(num_cpu
> ------
>
> And no return at the end of the line.
>
> I quickly went back to my stable 2.4.10-pre10-xfs source and looked the
> files again and they were still 'broken'. I don't know what other files
> might be involved in the trashing, I haven't looked that closely yet.
>
> Scary thing really since that's a project I'm working on on my free time
> and I don't want to lose the source to it. Bah, who needs backups :)
>
> System information:
>
> Tyan Tiger-100 S1532.
>
> 2x P3-450, 512MiB of memory (4x128MiB).
>
> kernel 2.4.15-pre7-xfs from CVS.
>
> Attached is my .config
>
> Compiled with redhat's gcc3 3.0.1 (based on 3.0.2 cvs, before 3.0.2 came
> out).
>
> I know I shouldn't but it hasn't given me any problems so far and I like
> bleeding edge, even though the edges may be sharp at times.
>
> But since it hasn't happened before with older 2.4.x kernels I wouldn't
> blame this on the compiler, but you never know.
>
> Anyone seen this before?
>
> // Stefan
>
>
|