From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o7UNVW3X028906 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:31:32 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 68B361236941 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:42:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (64-131-60-146.usfamily.net [64.131.60.146]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id gfKqZa2STMFb2L5h for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:42:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C7C3F78.5020500@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:32:08 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: What should to do with ASSERT failed References: <4C7C26E8.9070308@sandeen.net> 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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Mike Gao Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Mike Gao wrote: > Thanks very much for help. The kernel is pretty old, 2.6.19 but the xfs > is pretty new. > the block size is 512 and use mmap for test with write and read compare. > (xfstest 074). > > If I ignored this ASSERT(comment out), the test will failed. I guess > because some pages never written to disk. > FWIW, in your case, if you are not expecting to do IO like test 194 then maybe you'd be better off w/o this patch if it's causing problems in more normal IO patterns ... -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs