From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6457F5A for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:23:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF450AC004 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id FqZfstGlHj6fSPIl for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 03:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:23:35 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic Message-ID: <20130312102335.GM21651@dastard> References: <20130312074608.GL21651@dastard> <924669527.12643828.1363075451534.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <924669527.12643828.1363075451534.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: CAI Qian Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:04:11AM -0400, CAI Qian wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dave Chinner" > > To: "CAI Qian" > > Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:46:08 PM > > Subject: Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic > > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:34:07AM -0400, CAI Qian wrote: > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Dave Chinner" > > > > To: "CAI Qian" > > > > Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:07:01 PM > > > > Subject: Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:32:28AM -0400, CAI Qian wrote: > > > > > Just came across when running xfstests using 3.9-rc2 kernel on > > > > > a > > > > > power7 > > > > > box with addition of this patch which fixed a known issue, > > > > > http://people.redhat.com/qcai/stable/01-fix-double-fetch-hlist.patch > > > > > > > > > > The log shows it was happened around test case 370 with > > > > > TEST_PARAM_BLKSIZE = 2048 > > > > > > > > That doesn't sound like xfstests. it only has 305 tests, and no > > > > parameters like TEST_PARAM_BLKSIZE.... > > > Sorry, it is a typo, test case 270 not 370. TEST_PARAM_BLKSIZE was > > > from an internal wrapper to be used to create new filessytem not > > > from the > > > original xfstests. > > > > OK, so that means you're testing 2k filesystem block size on a 64k > > page size machine? > Looks like so. Would that be a problem? It shouldn't be a problem, but nobody else is testing with that config and so you could be seeing problems nobody sees. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs