From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED78A7F4E for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:08:05 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BECC9304066 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:08:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Cs7BrRhbbUNnNT73 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:07:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:07:57 +0100 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] xfs: buffer types need to be set Message-ID: <20150121160757.GA20357@quack.suse.cz> References: <1421800780-26008-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1421800780-26008-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.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: Dave Chinner Cc: jack@suse.cz, xfs@oss.sgi.com Hi Dave, On Wed 21-01-15 11:39:37, Dave Chinner wrote: > These three patches detect and fix the issues you reported with log > recovery finding buffers with a format type of zero. The type of > zero (XFS_BLFT_UNKNOWN_BUF) is only valid for buffers that have > been cancelled (i.e. invalidated or marked stale as they have been > freed), so the series adds asserts to ensure these conditions are > met during transaction commit. Hence we shouldn't ever get new code > that fails to set the buffer type getting through testing. > > The last two patches fix the cases that running xfstests uncovered > where we don't set the buffer type appropriately. There may be more, > but doing this much made my head hurt and xfstests is clean, so it's > as much as I'm going to do right now. Can you test it and see if it > runs clean (with CONFIG_XFS_WARN=y or CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG=y) on your > test setup? Thanks for a quick response with patches. My test round has finished and the new assertion didn't trigger so things look fine. I've also provided a test kernel to the guy seeing these issues in the wild but there it took days / weeks to trigger so I wouldn't wait for it... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs