All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Jacek Luczak <difrost.kernel@gmail.com>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	xfs mailing list <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [XFS] 2.6.29-rc2: XFS internal error XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTO
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:22:43 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090120232242.GA16776@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090120230306.GE10158@disturbed>

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:03:06AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> [XFS] Long btree pointers are still 64 bit on disk
> 
> On 32 bit machines with CONFIG_LBD=n, XFS reduces the
> in memory size of xfs_fsblock_t to 32 bits so that it
> will fit within 32 bit addressing. However, the disk format
> for long btree pointers are still 64 bits in size.
> 
> The recent btree rewrite failed to take this into account
> when initialising new btree blocks, setting sibling pointers
> to NULL and checking if they are NULL. Hence checking whether
> a 64 bit NULL was the same as a 32 bit NULL was failingi
> resulting in NULL sibling pointers failing to be detected
> correctly. This showed up as WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTO shutdowns
> in xfs_btree_delrec.
> 
> Fix this by making all the comparisons and setting of long
> pointer btree NULL blocks to the disk format, not the
> in memory format. i.e. use NULLDFSBNO.

Thanks, this fixes the testcase for me.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Jacek Luczak <difrost.kernel@gmail.com>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	xfs mailing list <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [XFS] 2.6.29-rc2: XFS internal error XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTO
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:22:43 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090120232242.GA16776@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090120230306.GE10158@disturbed>

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:03:06AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> [XFS] Long btree pointers are still 64 bit on disk
> 
> On 32 bit machines with CONFIG_LBD=n, XFS reduces the
> in memory size of xfs_fsblock_t to 32 bits so that it
> will fit within 32 bit addressing. However, the disk format
> for long btree pointers are still 64 bits in size.
> 
> The recent btree rewrite failed to take this into account
> when initialising new btree blocks, setting sibling pointers
> to NULL and checking if they are NULL. Hence checking whether
> a 64 bit NULL was the same as a 32 bit NULL was failingi
> resulting in NULL sibling pointers failing to be detected
> correctly. This showed up as WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTO shutdowns
> in xfs_btree_delrec.
> 
> Fix this by making all the comparisons and setting of long
> pointer btree NULL blocks to the disk format, not the
> in memory format. i.e. use NULLDFSBNO.

Thanks, this fixes the testcase for me.

  reply	other threads:[~2009-01-20 23:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-01-19 11:49 [XFS] 2.6.29-rc2: XFS internal error XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTO Jacek Luczak
2009-01-19 18:44 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-01-19 18:44   ` Eric Sandeen
2009-01-20  0:46   ` Dave Chinner
2009-01-20  0:46     ` Dave Chinner
2009-01-20  9:26     ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-20  9:26       ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-20 11:29     ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-20 11:29       ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-20 11:47       ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-20 11:47         ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-20 11:49         ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-20 11:49           ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-20 12:13           ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-20 12:13             ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-20 12:45             ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-20 12:45               ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-20 13:58               ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-20 13:58                 ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-20 14:05                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-20 14:05                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-20 14:13                   ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-20 14:13                     ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-20 14:23                   ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-20 14:23                     ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-20 14:32                     ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-20 14:32                       ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-21  4:05                     ` Dave Chinner
2009-01-21  4:05                       ` Dave Chinner
2009-01-21  9:04                       ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-21  9:04                         ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-21 22:58                         ` Dave Chinner
2009-01-21 22:58                           ` Dave Chinner
2009-01-20 13:35           ` Dave Chinner
2009-01-20 13:35             ` Dave Chinner
2009-01-20 23:03             ` [PATCH] " Dave Chinner
2009-01-20 23:03               ` Dave Chinner
2009-01-20 23:22               ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2009-01-20 23:22                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-20  9:24   ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-20  9:24     ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-20 10:42     ` Jacek Luczak
2009-01-20 10:42       ` Jacek Luczak

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090120232242.GA16776@infradead.org \
    --to=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=difrost.kernel@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.