On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:08:01AM +0100, Roland Eggner wrote:
> On Thursday Jan 15th 2009 at 23:14:38 Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:02:39AM +0100, Roland Eggner wrote:
> > > Latest (so far) working linux_220.127.116.11
> > > linux_2.6.28 seems to introduce a xfs regression:
> > You mean 2.6.29, don't you (i.e. a current TOT development kernel,
> > not a stable kernel)?
> I meant exactly what I have written: linux_2.6.28
The kernel number does not appear to change until -rc1 is released.
Hence 2.6.28-gitX is actually the first unsatable snapshots of the
> > We have received a few reports of that since 2.6.29-git2 after the
> > big XFS merge occurred. Can you confirm that you are running a very
> > recent unstable kernel and not a stable 2.6.28 kernel?
> all 2.6.28 builds which I have tried so far are broken,
> today tried linux_2.6.29-rc1 and got the same "XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTO .."
> note: SAME failure with
These would all appear to be 2.6.29 trees you are testing. I'm
pretty certain of this because in the vanilla stable 2.6.28 tree
fs/xfs/xfs_btree.c only has 914 lines in it and it has no
WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTO() macros in it either. See here if you don't
Linus pulled the XFS tree between -git1 and -git2, which is
why the file now has ~3700 lines in it and the bug you are
> Should I compile with CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG?
A reproducable test case based on an xfs_metadump image of the
filesystem would be much more helpful to us at this point.
> If you know a 2.6.28 or 2.6.29 kernel with REALLY stable xfs:
> please point me :-)
I don't think you really have tried the stable 2.6.28
release at all. I think you will find the problem does
not exist on 2.6.28.
> > BTW, I note your kernel is tainted (like a couple of other
> > reports of this problem). Can you tell us what module you are
> > running that taints the kernel so we can correlate that with
> > other reports of the problem?
> kernels vanilla from kernel.org
> + NVIDIA-Linux-x86-96.43.09 graphics driver
Ok, that's different to other taints we've seen, so probably