From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Subject: Re: OCFS2: ocfs2_read_blocks:285 ERROR: block 532737 had the JBD
 bit set while I was in lock_buffer!
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 20:25:04 +0200
Message-ID: <52262980.2050406@nod.at>
References: <CAFLxGvwLJs0ZrOZN-g=fCDEN4eAOQMjW_Nojm9fm5Rq0GKk9AQ@mail.gmail.com> <522554D6.4070000@oracle.com> <522584DD.8070401@nod.at> <20130903172244.GQ31381@wotan.suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>,
	richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>,
	"ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com" <ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@gmail.com>
To: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.de>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from b.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.144]:1661 "EHLO radon.swed.at"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755383Ab3ICSZJ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 3 Sep 2013 14:25:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20130903172244.GQ31381@wotan.suse.de>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

Am 03.09.2013 19:22, schrieb Mark Fasheh:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:42:37AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Am 03.09.2013 05:17, schrieb Jeff Liu:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> It seems like Sunil has fixed a similar issue against ocfs2-1.4
>>> several years ago:
>>> https://oss.oracle.com/git/?p=ocfs2-1.4.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=2fd250839d0f5073af8d42e97f1db74beb621674;hp=e882faf84930431524f84598caea7d4e9a9529c5
>>> https://oss.oracle.com/git/?p=ocfs2-1.4.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=eccff85213d4c2762f787d9e7cb1503042ba75b9;hp=edc147473ffd9c03790dc4502b893823f44a9ec4
>>>
>>> The old bug ticket for the discussion:
>>> https://oss.oracle.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1235
>>>
>>> This fix is specifically for ocfs2-1.4, but Mark once mentioned that
>>> the BUG() there can be removed if we have a good explanation for this
>>> sort of behavior, is it time to have it in mainline?
>>
>> Hmm, not fun.
>> In my case I'm not using NFS or any other network filesystem.
>> The OCFS2 is also used in local mode (no cluster).
>>
>> What really worries me is that this another proof that Oracles OCFS2 branch is out of sync with mainline.
> 
> Can you show me what branch you are talking about here?

https://oss.oracle.com/git/?p=ocfs2-1.4.git seems to contain fixes for years
which are not mainline.

Thanks,
//richard