From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miao Xie Subject: Re: wanted X found X-1 but you got X-2 Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:07:03 +0800 Message-ID: <4C581477.4030907@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <20100729131103.323870@gmx.net> <4C526516.30709@cn.fujitsu.com> <20100730071354.257500@gmx.net> <20100731163424.105410@gmx.net> <4C56199B.8090400@cn.fujitsu.com> <20100802193716.107960@gmx.net> Reply-To: miaox@cn.fujitsu.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com To: Adi Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100802193716.107960@gmx.net> List-ID: Hi, Adi On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:37:16 +0200, Adi wrote: > now i get that error (on btrfsck): > > parent transid verify failed on 5403553792 wanted 103380 found 103378 > btrfsck: disk-io.c:739: open_ctree_fd: Assertion `!(!tree_root->node)' failed. > > if i want to mount it, it shows the same error in dmesg, but neither one hangs the terminal, as it did without the patches. > do you need more debug? i didn't know how to activate it on gentoo, what flags do i need to do so? I don't know the detailed reproduce steps.Could you tell us the steps just like this? # mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdaN # mount /dev/sdaN /mnt # dd ...... # (suspend-to-disk) ... It is very useful for our analysis. Thanks Miao > hm, and the last patch didn't show any output on "patch -p1"... is that normal? > > bye, adi > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- >> Datum: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:04:27 +0800 >> Von: Miao Xie >> An: Adi >> CC: liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org >> Betreff: Re: wanted X found X-1 but you got X-2 > >> Hi, Adi >> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:34:24 +0200, Adi wrote: >>> ok, i have tried the 2.6.35-rc6 kernel, as TiCPU on #btrfs suggested, >> but i also got an error. i don't think it has something to do with kcrypt, as >> i can mount another partition without any problems. >> [snip] >>> ------------[ cut here ]------------ >>> kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/async-thread.c:603! >>> invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT >> [snip] >> It seems this problem is the same as the one I have fixed. >> Could you try to applied the following patches and test again? >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/29/86 >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/29/84 >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/29/82 >> >> Thanks >> Miao >