From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wall.comdev.cc ([63.150.62.162] helo=cleanup.comdev.cc) by pentafluge.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 16Qy99-00079c-00 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:03:03 +0000 Message-ID: <3C45FA96.8DE3EDAA@comdev.cc> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:11:34 -0800 From: Adam Wozniak MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse CC: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: different crash (was Re: JFFS2 is crashing the kernel) References: <3C45F441.B65F5F31@comdev.cc> <19201.1011213161@redhat.com> <3C45DC51.599F4E7B@comdev.cc> <20020116163239.99399.qmail@web13206.mail.yahoo.com> <8630.1011205354@redhat.com> <19249.1011213352@redhat.com> <21352.1011218787@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: David Woodhouse wrote: > > adam.wozniak@comdev.cc said: > > Id: build.c,v 1.22 2002/01/09 16:30:57 dwmw2 Exp > > Bugger. There was a bug in 1.21 which could cause the symptoms you saw - > but I fixed it in 1.22. > > Now I'm confused. It's possible that the shuffling around of code for > portability, although it shouldn't have changed the behaviour in any > significant way, has introduced a bug. > > I suspect you have a node or inocache on the list which has been freed and > shouldn't be there. > > If this were reproducible, I'd want you to add debugging printks to > jffs2_{alloc,free}_raw_node_ref similar to the ones in the inocache > alloc/free functions. Also to jffs2_raw_ref_to_inum() to print raw and raw-> > next_in_ino each time round the loop you identified. > > Then boot with debugging (level 1) enabled and log _all_ messages, even the > KERN_DEBUG ones, from the time the filesystem is first mounted. > > -- > dwmw2 Is it possible that I could have had a kernel with build.c rev 1.21 which wrote bad data to flash, then upgraded the kernel with a build.c rev 1.22 then got the crash? I'm a little distant from the actual test lab, so I don't have the whole history of the machine which crashed. I also have machines in the field which are running with a build.c rev 1.21 or earlier. Are they likely to be susceptable to this? --Adam -- Adam Wozniak (KG6GZR) COM DEV Wireless - Digital and Software Systems awozniak@comdev.cc 3450 Broad St. 107, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 http://www.comdev.cc Voice: (805) 544-1089 Fax: (805) 544-2055