From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id pAH7U7qE023979 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:30:07 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 6E6EB162651D for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:30:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id QuwZvumooqXc8t6A for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:30:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:30:04 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] [PATCH] xfs: fix attr2 vs large data fork assert Message-ID: <20111117073004.GB3733@infradead.org> References: <20111115201407.038216766@bombadil.infradead.org> <20111115201426.498870090@bombadil.infradead.org> <20111116231517.GA7046@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111116231517.GA7046@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:15:17AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 03:14:08PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > With Dmitry fsstress updates I've seen very reproducible crashes in > > xfs_attr_shortform_remove because xfs_attr_shortform_bytesfit claims that > > the attributes would not fit inline into the inode after removing an > > attribute. It turns out that we were operating on an inode with lots > > of delalloc extents, and thus an if_bytes values for the data fork that > > is larger than biggest possible on-disk storage for it which utterly > > confuses the code near the end of xfs_attr_shortform_bytesfit. > > We have a test that stresses allocated extents vs attributes in the > xfs_fsr swapext test (227), but that does not take into account > delalloc extents. It sounds like it would be relatively easy to > write a regression test for this particular case - create a file > with a bunch of attributes, then create a number of delalloc data > extents, then remove the attributes to trigger the condition in > xfs_attr_shortform_remove().... Test 117 with Dmitries new fsstress changes hit it 100% reliably before xfstests: freeze fsstress options for 117'th I was planning on adding a copy of the test using an explicit combination of fsstress seeds that reproduce the issue. > While you are touching that function, can you fix all the whitespace > damage as well? (lots of trailing whitespace). There's a couple of > typos I noticed in your changes (below), but otherwise looks good. I'll fix the tpos and whitespace issues. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs