X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0-rupdated (updated) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.0-rupdated Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id n091gmmu031519 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 19:42:48 -0600 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1231465365-793b02fb0000-NocioJ X-Barracuda-URL: http://cuda.sgi.com:80/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 44958120CD08 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:42:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id rG2DqNK6Oe2gTU9A for ; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:42:46 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAFMtZkl5LDnl/2dsb2JhbADPQIV1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.37,236,1231075800"; d="scan'208";a="289460791" Received: from ppp121-44-57-229.lns10.syd7.internode.on.net (HELO disturbed) ([121.44.57.229]) by ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2009 11:16:10 +1030 Received: from dave by disturbed with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LL5Vp-0001kI-DJ; Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:46:09 +1100 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:46:09 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Danny ter Haar Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: problems showing up as XFS problems on kernels after 2.6.28-git2 Subject: Re: problems showing up as XFS problems on kernels after 2.6.28-git2 Message-ID: <20090109004609.GM9448@disturbed> Mail-Followup-To: Danny ter Haar , Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com References: <20090107165218.GA11132@dth.net> <20090107180246.GA15218@infradead.org> <20090107182415.GA12039@dth.net> <20090107183115.GA6261@infradead.org> <20090107184420.GA15653@dth.net> <20090107185628.GA19255@infradead.org> <20090108215602.GA24479@dth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090108215602.GA24479@dth.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Barracuda-Connect: ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net[203.16.214.145] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1231465367 X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by cuda.sgi.com at sgi.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -2.02 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-2.02 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=2.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=2.1 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.1.14742 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/8845/Thu Jan 8 10:52:13 2009 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Status: Clean On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 10:56:02PM +0100, Danny ter Haar wrote: > > I needed the parallel port driver so i compiled 2.6.28-git3 with debug info. > It barfed: http://www.dth.net/kernel/c3/netconsole_2.6.28-git3-d.txt Looking at this, I think there are two possibilities in terms of the problem being detected. We are modifying the inode BMBT here, so that means we have XFS_BTREE_ROOT_IN_INODE set. The corruption trigger has occurred because a xfs_btree_increment() call has returned a zero status. This means we failed here: 1324 /* Fail if we just went off the right edge of the tree. */ 1325 xfs_btree_get_sibling(cur, block, &ptr, XFS_BB_RIGHTSIB); 1326 if (xfs_btree_ptr_is_null(cur, &ptr)) 1327 goto out0; or here: 1351 /* 1352 * If we went off the root then we are either seriously 1353 * confused or have the tree root in an inode. 1354 */ 1355 if (lev == cur->bc_nlevels) { 1356 if (cur->bc_flags & XFS_BTREE_ROOT_IN_INODE) 1357 goto out0; 1358 ASSERT(0); i.e. we either fell off the right edge of the tree or went over the top of it. I can't really see how we've done either of those things unless the tree has been corrupted by a prior operation. Given that each time it is aptitude that is causing the problem, can you prevent aptitude from running automatically on boot and run it manually? If you can reporduce the problem manually then we can move on to the next step.... > So (in my case) something while going from git2 -> git3 didn't go positive. That would have been when Linus did the XFS pull... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com