Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:42:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from K-7.stesmi.com (1-2-2-1a.has.sth.bostream.se [82.182.130.86])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with SMTP id i2PMg6KO001357
	for <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:42:09 -0800
Received: from stesmi.com (deltaflyer.stesmi.com [192.168.1.14])
	by K-7.stesmi.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i2PMfvId014213;
	Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:41:57 +0100
Message-ID: <40636032.3000402@stesmi.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:41:54 +0100
From: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@stesmi.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040316
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Steve Lord <lord@xfs.org>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>,
        "IKARASHI, Seiichi" <ikarashi@miraclelinux.com>, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: synchronization of XFS
References: <4060F7FC.8090602@miraclelinux.com> <20040325063902.GA9697@dingdong.cryptoapps.com> <4062C97A.6030702@miraclelinux.com> <20040325124152.GA12078@dingdong.cryptoapps.com> <4062D7E5.6070501@stesmi.com> <20040325132200.GA12333@dingdong.cryptoapps.com> <4062E19A.90207@xfs.org> <20040325140723.GA12558@dingdong.cryptoapps.com> <20040325144519.A23764@infradead.org> <40635F04.6010109@xfs.org>
In-Reply-To: <40635F04.6010109@xfs.org>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-archive-position: 2608
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
X-original-sender: stesmi@stesmi.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: linux-xfs
Content-Length: 852
Lines: 31

Steve Lord wrote:

> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
>>
>>>> Now if grub is opening the block device and reading out of that, it
>>>> is looking at the same pages for metadata that xfs is looking at in
>>>> memory. There is a bug where you can get corruption if you access
>>>> the block device in parallel with the filesystem. Possibly this is
>>>> behind the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> This will cause an oops on 2.6.x won't it --- so I suspect if this is
>>> behind the problem the report will be have been different.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think they're hitting the problem, the symptoms look very 
>> different.
>>
> 
> And thinking about it some more, having grub make the filesystem remount 
> readonly would force everything down to disk unlike just doing a sync
> call.

Tried and failed :(

Tried that before but it didn't help unfortunately.

// Stefan