From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:27469 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750856AbbFYFET convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 01:04:19 -0400 Message-ID: <558B8BBD.2010004@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:03:57 +0800 From: wangyf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Tomlinson , Omar Sandoval CC: , Miao Xie , Zhao Lei , Philip Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Btrfs: RAID 5/6 missing device scrub+replace References: <5588CD54.9050405@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150624041310.GA26148@huxley.DHCP.TheFacebook.com> <5cfdd3e8-e9ba-4b3a-a858-49f6a36f18de@aei.ca> In-Reply-To: <5cfdd3e8-e9ba-4b3a-a858-49f6a36f18de@aei.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I confirmed this bug report, and found the reason is that I compiled the patched module with a dirty kernel. This morning I tested this patch again, and didn't see above error, this patch is OK. Sorry for this bug report. : ( 在 2015年06月24日 20:00, Ed Tomlinson 写道: > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 12:15:29 AM EDT, Omar Sandoval wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:07:00AM +0800, wangyf wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I have tested your PATCH v2 , but something wrong happened. >>> >>> kernel: 4.1.0-rc7+ with your five patches >>> vitrualBox ubuntu14.10-server + LVM >>> >>> I make a new btrfs.ko with your patches, >>> rmmod original module and insmod the new. >>> >>> When I use the profile RAID1/10, mkfs successfully >>> But when mount the fs, dmesg dumped: >>> trans: 18446612133975020584 running 5 >>> btrfs transid mismatch buffer 29507584, found 18446612133975020584 >>> running 5 >>> btrfs transid mismatch buffer 29507584, found 18446612133975020584 >>> running 5 >>> btrfs transid mismatch buffer 29507584, found 18446612133975020584 >>> running 5 >>> ... ... >>> >>> When use the RAID5/6, mkfs and mount >>> system stoped at the 'mount -t btrfs /dev/mapper/server-dev1 /mnt' cmd. >>> >>> That's all. >> >> Hm, that's really weird, I can't reproduce that here at all. I don't see >> what would cause that in this series, and the changes from v1 are >> minimal. For my sake, could you make sure that there's nothing else >> going on? > > Omar, > > I've been running v1 of this patch and now with v2 and have done > numberious reboots without issues... Just another data point. > > Ed