Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*assertion\s+failure\s+with\s+latest\s+xfs\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*assertion\s+failure\s+with\s+latest\s+xfs\s*$/: 24 ]

Total 24 documents matching your query.

1. s in radix tree preload region (score: 1): Author: lan McIlroy); Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:08:15 +1000; Just encountered this after pulling in the latest changes. We are trying to initialise an inode that should have an i_count of 1 but instead it is 2. I was running XFSQA test 167 when it happened. St; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00507.html (14,039 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 2/2] free partially initialized inodes using destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:31:49 -0400; I think the assert is incorrect. The inode has been added to the radix tree in xfs_iget_cache_miss, and starting from that point an igrab can kick in from the sync code and bump the refcount.; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00511.html (8,315 bytes)
3. 6 - fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:21:26 +1100; Actually, it was put there for a reason. The generic code doesn't allow new inodes to be found in the cache until the I_LOCK flag is cleared. This is done by calling wait_on_inode() after a successfu; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00514.html (15,557 bytes)
4. ort of xfsprogs 2.9.8-1 (score: 1): Author: n <npiggin@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:43:31 +1100; Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:31:49PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:08:15PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: Just encountered this after pulling in the late; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00698.html (11,712 bytes)
5. process_iunlinks (score: 1): Author: avid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:29:41 +1100; 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; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00703.html (9,326 bytes)
6. ntegrity and other fixes (take 3) (score: 1): Author: n <npiggin@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:29:16 +1100; Dave Chinner wrote: 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; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00732.html (10,263 bytes)
7. Add new flags to getbmapx interface (score: 1): Author: avid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:38:33 +1100; Ah - ok, that makes sense now. That should be trivial to fix up; we just need to avoid XFS_INEW() inodes in xfs_sync_inodes_ag() and probably also in xfs_qm_dqrele_all(), and that will mean the asser; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00736.html (10,951 bytes)
8. ch 0/9] writeback data integrity and other fixes (take 3) (score: 1): Author: avid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:09:16 +1100; I noticed that the radix tree walk didn't get fixed in xfs_qm_syscalls.c for the last round of bug fixes. The fix for this really needs to have that as well. I'll post a series in a minute.... Cheers; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00743.html (10,599 bytes)
9. list (score: 1): Author: achlan@xxxxxxx (Lachlan McIlroy); Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:08:15 +1000; Just encountered this after pulling in the latest changes. We are trying to initialise an inode that should have an i_count of 1 but instead it is 2. I was running XFSQA test 167 when it happened. St; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01327.html (13,856 bytes)
10. ng log initialisation (score: 1): Author: ic Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:31:49 -0400; I think the assert is incorrect. The inode has been added to the radix tree in xfs_iget_cache_miss, and starting from that point an igrab can kick in from the sync code and bump the refcount.; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01331.html (8,136 bytes)
11. estroy_inode (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:21:26 +1100; Actually, it was put there for a reason. The generic code doesn't allow new inodes to be found in the cache until the I_LOCK flag is cleared. This is done by calling wait_on_inode() after a successfu; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01335.html (15,378 bytes)
12. ame? (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:43:31 +1100; Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:31:49PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:08:15PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: Just encountered this after pulling in the late; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01556.html (11,498 bytes)
13. ? (score: 1): Author: xxx>; Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:29:41 +1100; 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; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01561.html (9,147 bytes)
14. permission checking (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:29:16 +1100; Dave Chinner wrote: 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; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01590.html (10,080 bytes)
15. eback data integrity and other fixes (take 3) (score: 1): Author: xxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:38:33 +1100; Ah - ok, that makes sense now. That should be trivial to fix up; we just need to avoid XFS_INEW() inodes in xfs_sync_inodes_ag() and probably also in xfs_qm_dqrele_all(), and that will mean the asser; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01594.html (10,772 bytes)
16. and other fixes (take 3) (score: 1): Author: xxx>; Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:09:16 +1100; I noticed that the radix tree walk didn't get fixed in xfs_qm_syscalls.c for the last round of bug fixes. The fix for this really needs to have that as well. I'll post a series in a minute.... Cheers; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01601.html (10,420 bytes)
17. assertion failure with latest xfs (score: 1): Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:08:15 +1000; Just encountered this after pulling in the latest changes. We are trying to initialise an inode that should have an i_count of 1 but instead it is 2. I was running XFSQA test 167 when it happened. St; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg02145.html (13,714 bytes)
18. Re: assertion failure with latest xfs (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:31:49 -0400; I think the assert is incorrect. The inode has been added to the radix tree in xfs_iget_cache_miss, and starting from that point an igrab can kick in from the sync code and bump the refcount.; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg02149.html (8,184 bytes)
19. Re: assertion failure with latest xfs (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:21:26 +1100; Actually, it was put there for a reason. The generic code doesn't allow new inodes to be found in the cache until the I_LOCK flag is cleared. This is done by calling wait_on_inode() after a successfu; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg02153.html (15,462 bytes)
20. Re: assertion failure with latest xfs (score: 1): Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:43:31 +1100; Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:31:49PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:08:15PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: Just encountered this after pulling in the late; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg02374.html (11,579 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]