[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [XFS] 2.6.29-rc2: XFS internal error XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTO

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jacek Luczak <difrost.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs mailing list <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [XFS] 2.6.29-rc2: XFS internal error XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTO
From: Jacek Luczak <difrost.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:26:23 +0100
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HjrNQ1NGG2QUGEhlR+/g+ULSiZRQH8sX+YNMhBhmE1g=; b=h2CR72yUsm0hJeswKIxvylJdNrAz02GCbvb64sVPIwAt6/hWXEWij4nYJPjOFq7zPE /MHqpKC2U93pTfC5aHgI+pcX0kDw7iVIJR9HHkS6SqEGZSJNF914ia9/wZKc/1hm/Mkn vbu/CP+mzNIo/daiSoXawxalLVg9Xt0grA+Hs=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=PkWhce/2d+ohhjVUIOiELWq1gtaP3RmR7De4i+8A9449rEq9hSAkbePthQgejYJFH2 f4OPKx2cwlx6TycXgFT1vUi5Y1/ZQofRcEc/GJi+klPK0VcgqLgYNpUKmoz7fQxChIdi 0mlVj11EnSWF+f3YkkbidofJpPOGhH6SOYySs=
In-reply-to: <20090120004611.GA6445@disturbed>
References: <497468C1.3000001@xxxxxxxxx> <4974CA20.6050308@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20090120004611.GA6445@disturbed>
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20081209)
Dave Chinner pisze:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:44:48PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Jacek Luczak wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> I've stepped into XFS issue/bug. Yesterday I've compiled 2.6.29-rc2 and no
>>> didn't found errors. Today I've booted my notebook and XFS bug have 
>>> occurred.
>>> System reboot didn't helped, same error appeared.
>>> Some info:
>>> [1] config: http://pin.if.uz.zgora.pl/~difrost/linux-next/2.6.29-rc2.config
>>> [2] kernel logs:
>>> http://pin.if.uz.zgora.pl/~difrost/linux-next/2.6.29-rc2_XFS-bug.log
>>> [3] most interesting part of log below.
>> so this happens every mount?  Reproducible is good.  How large is the
>> filesystem (too large to extract elsewhere for analysis...?) (plus I
>> suppose it'll be hard to get to it when you can't even boot....)
> XFS folks, I suspect the common link between all the reports of this
> bug is that they are on 32-bit kernels. I can't reproduce this on
> a 64 bit kernel, and I'm trying to get a 32-bit UML built right now
> to test this theory.

Yep, 32-bits here. I've googled a while looking for some answer and it looks
like it has happen before in various kernel version (no report regarding 2.6.29


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