xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RFI for 2.6.25.5 : Re: Regression- XFS won't mount on partitioned md arr

To: Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RFI for 2.6.25.5 : Re: Regression- XFS won't mount on partitioned md array
From: David Greaves <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 14:33:35 +0100
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LinuxRaid <linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <482FED60.7060405@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <482DC043.5000307@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <482DD981.5070004@xxxxxxxxxxx> <482EEFDA.50101@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <482EF6A7.2020909@xxxxxxxxxxx> <482F67D9.70400@xxxxxxxxxxx> <482FBD4C.20608@xxxxxxxxxxx> <482FED60.7060405@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080406)
Hi Greg
Perusing:
  http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git
doesn't show the patch referenced below as in the queue for 2.6.25.5

David

David Greaves wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll see if I have a little time today to track down the problem.
>>> Does this patch fix it for you?  Does for me though I can't yet explain
>>> why ;)
>>>
>>> http://www.linux.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-05/msg00190.html
>>>
>>> -Eric
> Yes, this fixes it for me - thanks :)
> 
>> So what's happening is that xfs is trying to read a page-sized IO from
>> the last sector of the log... which goes off the end of the device.
>> This looks like another regression introduced by
>> a9759f2de38a3443d5107bddde03b4f3f550060e, but fixed by Christoph's patch
>> in the URL above, which should be headed towards -stable.
> Damn, I guess I misread my bisect readings when things crashed then.
> Still, I said 'around' :)
> 
>> (aside: it seems that this breaks any external log setup where the log
>> consists of the entire device... but I'd have expected the xfsqa suite
>> to catch this...?)
>>
>> The patch avoids the problem by looking for some extra locking but it
>> seems to me that the root cause is that the buffer being read at this
>> point doesn't have it's b_offset, the offset in it's page, set.  Might
>> be another little buglet but harmless it seems.


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