From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail-fx0-f49.google.com ([209.85.161.49])
	by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
	id 1OsXV9-0002HS-37
	for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 08:56:31 +0000
Received: by fxm12 with SMTP id 12so3029617fxm.36
	for <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>;
	Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: ubifs : corruption after power cut test
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
To: Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@parrot.com>
In-Reply-To: <1282463086.16502.38.camel@brekeke>
References: <4C346D5B.2000609@parrot.com> <4C3C1572.8080501@parrot.com>
	<4C3C2740.2040105@parrot.com> <4C3C30D1.9030005@parrot.com>
	<1279031064.31639.90.camel@localhost> <4C3C81E3.3030407@parrot.com>
	<4C4FDEF5.2040405@parrot.com>  <1282463086.16502.38.camel@brekeke>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:55:08 +0300
Message-ID: <1283763308.11066.0.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 10:44 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 09:40 +0200, Matthieu CASTET wrote:
> > I manage to reproduce it with the backtrace [1].
> 
> Matthieu, your work-around patch or something very close should
> certainly be applied to the UBIFS tree, but I still would like to find
> out what exactly happened in your setup.
> 
> I see 2 possibilities:
> 
> 1. An error happened and 'ubifs_garbage_collect()' returned while
> c->gc_lnum was -1. But in this case we should have switched to R/O mode,
> and the master node would not be written. But may be for some reasons we
> did not switch to R/O mode, dunno.
> 
> 2. More likely scenario: in 'ubifs_rcvry_gc_commit()' we call
> 'ubifs_garbage_collect_leb()' directly, which can return while
> c->gc_lnum is -1. And we do not handle this.
> 
> Would you please be patient enough to reproduce the issue once again with
> the following patch, which was created against the latest ubifs-2.6.git, but
> you should be easily able to apply it to your tree.

Hi, any news?

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)