From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Reinoud Zandijk Subject: Re: Crash... Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:58:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20090724085803.GA23256@aardappel.13thmonkey.org> References: <9cdbb57f0907230555k768383c2ld1690d31cc6fff83@mail.gmail.com> <20090724.011249.110726474.ryusuke@osrg.net> <9cdbb57f0907231402i1a92cb4qfe5a9d81346a4665@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: NILFS Users mailing list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9cdbb57f0907231402i1a92cb4qfe5a9d81346a4665-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org Errors-To: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org To: NILFS Users mailing list On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:02:47PM +0200, Andrea Gelmini wrote: > 2009/7/23 Ryusuke Konishi : > > It also suggests that an inconsistent state in page cache of B-tree > > nodes hit the function; the function found a dirty page, but the page > > didn't have buffer heads which was supposed to be impossible for the > > b-tree of nilfs. > -> mkfs.nilfs2 -b 1024 /dev/mapper/VG-NilfHome (maybe the problem > is the 1K block size?) 1024 is lower than the page size so that might explain a lot! I think its a missing check in the mkfs.nilfs2 to never allow lower values than the page size for block size.... but Ryusuke can better answer that :-D With regards, Reinoud