Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*3\.9\-rc2\s+xfs\s+panic\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: CAI Qian <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:32:28 -0400 (EDT)
Just came across when running xfstests using 3.9-rc2 kernel on a power7 box with addition of this patch which fixed a known issue, http://people.redhat.com/qcai/stable/01-fix-double-fetch-hlist.patch
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00271.html (16,711 bytes)

2. Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:07:01 +1100
That doesn't sound like xfstests. it only has 305 tests, and no parameters like TEST_PARAM_BLKSIZE.... Shutdown for an in-memory problem of some kind.... And after remounting the filesystemi a couple
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00272.html (16,171 bytes)

3. Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: CAI Qian <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 02:34:07 -0400 (EDT)
-- Original Message -- Sorry, it is a typo, test case 270 not 370. TEST_PARAM_BLKSIZE was from an internal wrapper to be used to create new filessytem not from the original xfstests. Apologize for th
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00275.html (17,283 bytes)

4. Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:46:08 +1100
OK, so that means you're testing 2k filesystem block size on a 64k page size machine? Are you running with CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG=y? Does this turn anything up? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00276.html (9,370 bytes)

5. Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: CAI Qian <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 04:04:11 -0400 (EDT)
-- Original Message -- Looks like so. Would that be a problem? TEST_PARAM_TEST_DEV not specified; using loopback file TEST_PARAM_SCRATCH_DEV not specified; using loopback file meta-data=/dev/loop0 is
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00277.html (11,023 bytes)

6. Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:23:35 +1100
It shouldn't be a problem, but nobody else is testing with that config and so you could be seeing problems nobody sees. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00281.html (10,199 bytes)

7. Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: CAI Qian <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 22:44:36 -0400 (EDT)
Eek, got another NULL pointer on an x64 system also. Looks like from xfstests case 110. Same user-space version as the one in the ppc64 case. Still trying to reproduce and without more debugging opti
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00329.html (14,388 bytes)

8. Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:43:07 +1100
What happens prior to this message? This is the first indication of a problem.... And that indicates that the buftarg attached to the buffer has a NULL xfs_mount pointer, so it's probably related to
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00332.html (10,702 bytes)

9. Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: CAI Qian <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:56:16 -0400 (EDT)
-- Original Message -- Something might be interesting before those were, [30409.026043] XFS (loop1): xfs_log_force: error 5 returned. [30409.027253] XFS (loop1): xfs_log_force: error 5 returned. [304
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00333.html (11,462 bytes)

10. Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: CAI Qian <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:39:33 -0400 (EDT)
OK, this time I reproduced this panic on both x64 and ppc64 systems with LVM partitions using the default block size as well as enabling debugging and memory poisoning options. - ppc64 trace: (nothin
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00383.html (19,198 bytes)

11. Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: CAI Qian <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 04:06:04 -0400 (EDT)
This is easy to reproduce here, Bisecting is under way... -- Original Message --
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00384.html (23,027 bytes)

12. Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:17:01 -0500
Bisecting is under way... Right now, xfstests 111 will cause a panic. See thread: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00322.html --Mark.
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00408.html (8,641 bytes)

13. Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:39:19 +1100
On a debug kernel, yes. On a production kernel, no. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00433.html (8,907 bytes)

14. Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic (score: 1)
Author: CAI Qian <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 04:39:09 -0400 (EDT)
FYI, I never saw any of those issues on testing any longer after switched to use real storage devices rather than loopback ones. I have changed the tests to always use real ones since then. CAI Qian
/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00797.html (7,917 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu