From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Greaves Subject: RFI for 2.6.25.5 : Re: Regression- XFS won't mount on partitioned md array Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 14:33:35 +0100 Message-ID: <4838192F.3050004@dgreaves.com> References: <482DC043.5000307@dgreaves.com> <482DD981.5070004@sandeen.net> <482EEFDA.50101@dgreaves.com> <482EF6A7.2020909@sandeen.net> <482F67D9.70400@sandeen.net> <482FBD4C.20608@sandeen.net> <482FED60.7060405@dgreaves.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <482FED60.7060405@dgreaves.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Greg KH Cc: Eric Sandeen , David Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com, "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" , Christoph Hellwig , LinuxRaid List-Id: linux-raid.ids Hi Greg Perusing: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git doesn't show the patch referenced below as in the queue for 2.6.25.5 David David Greaves wrote: > Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> >>>> I'll see if I have a little time today to track down the problem. >>> Does this patch fix it for you? Does for me though I can't yet explain >>> why ;) >>> >>> http://www.linux.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-05/msg00190.html >>> >>> -Eric > Yes, this fixes it for me - thanks :) > >> So what's happening is that xfs is trying to read a page-sized IO from >> the last sector of the log... which goes off the end of the device. >> This looks like another regression introduced by >> a9759f2de38a3443d5107bddde03b4f3f550060e, but fixed by Christoph's patch >> in the URL above, which should be headed towards -stable. > Damn, I guess I misread my bisect readings when things crashed then. > Still, I said 'around' :) > >> (aside: it seems that this breaks any external log setup where the log >> consists of the entire device... but I'd have expected the xfsqa suite >> to catch this...?) >> >> The patch avoids the problem by looking for some extra locking but it >> seems to me that the root cause is that the buffer being read at this >> point doesn't have it's b_offset, the offset in it's page, set. Might >> be another little buglet but harmless it seems.