From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 17 May 2008 22:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m4I5MbYj013022 for ; Sat, 17 May 2008 22:22:37 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 71CB0B82875 for ; Sat, 17 May 2008 22:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id k608SHpCV2uTixHC for ; Sat, 17 May 2008 22:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <482FBD4C.20608@sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 00:23:24 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Regression- XFS won't mount on partitioned md array References: <482DC043.5000307@dgreaves.com> <482DD981.5070004@sandeen.net> <482EEFDA.50101@dgreaves.com> <482EF6A7.2020909@sandeen.net> <482F67D9.70400@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <482F67D9.70400@sandeen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Greaves Cc: David Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com, "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" , Christoph Hellwig Eric Sandeen wrote: > Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> I'll see if I have a little time today to track down the problem. > > > Does this patch fix it for you? Does for me though I can't yet explain > why ;) > > http://www.linux.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-05/msg00190.html > > -Eric So what's happening is that xfs is trying to read a page-sized IO from the last sector of the log... which goes off the end of the device. This looks like another regression introduced by a9759f2de38a3443d5107bddde03b4f3f550060e, but fixed by Christoph's patch in the URL above, which should be headed towards -stable. (aside: it seems that this breaks any external log setup where the log consists of the entire device... but I'd have expected the xfsqa suite to catch this...?) The patch avoids the problem by looking for some extra locking but it seems to me that the root cause is that the buffer being read at this point doesn't have it's b_offset, the offset in it's page, set. Might be another little buglet but harmless it seems. -Eric