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 EB0637F83 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 07:51:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70035AC001 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ud10.udmedia.de (ud10.udmedia.de [194.117.254.50]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id bp3drXxVixqNwDJX (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:51:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 14:51:49 +0200 From: Markus Trippelsdorf Subject: Re: [Bisected] Corruption of root fs during git bisect of drm system hang Message-ID: <20130719125149.GB360@x4> References: <20130713090523.GA362@x4> <20130712070721.GA359@x4> <20130715022841.GH5228@dastard> <20130715064734.GA361@x4> <20130719122235.GA360@x4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Stefan Ring Cc: Ben Myers , Mark Tinguely , Stan Hoeppner , Linux fs XFS On 2013.07.19 at 14:41 +0200, Stefan Ring wrote: > > I've bisected this issue to the following commit: > > > > commit cca9f93a52d2ead50b5da59ca83d5f469ee4be5f > > Author: Dave Chinner > > Date: Thu Jun 27 16:04:49 2013 +1000 > > > > xfs: don't do IO when creating an new inode > > > > Reverting this commit on top of the Linus tree "solves" all problems for > > me. IOW I no longer loose my KDE and LibreOffice config files during a > > crash. Log recovery now works fine and xfs_repair shows no issues. > > > > So users of 3.11.0-rc1 beware. Only run this version if you have > > up-to-date backups handy. > > What I miss in this thread is a distinction between filesystem > corruption on the one hand and a few zeroed files on the other. The > latter may be a nuisance, but it is expected behavior, while the > former should never happen, period, if I'm not mistaken. Well, it is natural that fs developers at first try to blame userspace. Unfortunately it turned out that in this case there is filesystem corruption. (Fortunately this normally happens only very rarely on rc1 kernels). -- Markus _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs