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 3B4B27F4E for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:11:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA80AC009 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:11:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id psmVnMM1vI2AMO6L (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:11:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:11:10 +0100 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] xfs: buffer types need to be set Message-ID: <20150121171110.GE20357@quack.suse.cz> References: <1421800780-26008-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20150121160757.GA20357@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150121160757.GA20357@quack.suse.cz> 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 On Wed 21-01-15 17:07:57, Jan Kara wrote: > 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... BTW, this should be stable material I guess (just that I didn't see CC to stable in the patches). Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs