xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [xfs-masters] 2.6.29-rc: kernel BUG at fs/xfs/support/debug.c:108

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] 2.6.29-rc: kernel BUG at fs/xfs/support/debug.c:108
From: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:34:36 +0300
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, kernel-testers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WMY5tJUZGY+wDX10W6rK9EVvsVa691JwmiAEfTgTTY0=; b=JuK7h9QhOTk4EYk5/TEBF7xAgkVYVgYm8thLrX/zK9egNfLKAW2k+wesQeimu7qgkG QKWSfOSN4m2rSKpHGs5p6WqSZQD7wUnp1GZ6TngW9j0rSo21jydSm/CzNeB9sH51llTk DLPAYGYwNJOcdJtGlv8rvdP2RPjilTJL/NCGs=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QJwWBnmBpsR5z3fuv4JBfOYAe0kpQi6t3oXIGnqUbatE+NbkqA7QTdtQZqZLVNBx/A lFbfKMmaQQHzUjm4un8d2Sdwm2ViUqSZT6Fi5js20Hjwmx+ZyGb4vzeoXWUcG5yPNtlW DAG1e7aI/6DJR0EEyaVRpbqSkskvBB2UXdES4=
In-reply-to: <20090120203319.GA7103@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20090110143924.GA25900@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090110152803.GA7469@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090110221459.GA8873@orion> <20090111104659.GB8071@disturbed> <a4423d670901111648w26e86baajcf7b6d98ff37d043@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090112034550.GI8071@disturbed> <a4423d670901120008j728af9cdrbed8bbb938117ea3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090112211848.GL8071@disturbed> <a4423d670901201054t3e48ece2ned4a7e3254250fce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090120203319.GA7103@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
2009/1/20 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 09:54:44PM +0300, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Is it a new bug?
>> It is pre-2.6.29-rc1 kernel, which was supossed to be free of the bug
>> "fs_is_ok, file: fs/xfs/xfs_btree.c, line: 3327"
>
> From the trace it's a post-btree consolidation kernel, so all the bugs
> in -rc1 are there, too.  It looks like this is the readahead type
> cockup that Geert noticed, so this particular one should be fixed in
> -rc2.
>
> I would strongly recommend to just turn on CNFIG_LBD for post-2.6.28
> kernels for now as all the problems showing up are without CONFIG_LBD.
Yes, both bugs do not appear on kernel with CONFIG_LBD=y.

But I do not need LBD. Does XFS strongly require LBD?
Should I always turn it on even if I do not have files or devices of size 2Tb+ ?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>