xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: assertion failure with latest xfs

To: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: assertion failure with latest xfs
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:29:41 +1100
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4907B1B3.4020008@xxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <49003EFF.4090404@xxxxxxx> <20081023173149.GA30316@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081023222126.GA18495@disturbed> <4907B1B3.4020008@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:43:31AM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>> Hmmmm - there's also another bug in xfs_iget_cache_hit() - we don't
>> drop the reference we got if we found an unlinked inode after the
>> igrab() (the ENOENT case). I'll fix that as well.
>>
>> Patch below that I'm currently running through xfsqa.
>
> I gave this patch a go and it still asserted at the same place running
> the same test.

Can you put more inode trace points in so that we can see where the
extra reference is coming from?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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