Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+filesystem\s+corruption\s+on\s+the\s+arm\(el\)\s+architecture\s*$/: 63 ]

Total 63 documents matching your query.

1. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:45:56 +1000
Adding xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx to the cc list so all the XFS folk see this. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00012.html (27,269 bytes)

2. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:56:13 -0500
At one point there were other patches floating around to "fix" arm which were not correct. Are these problems seen on a pristine 2.6.27-rc4 kernel, or with other special arm patches applied? -Eric
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00013.html (10,832 bytes)

3. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:17:50 -0500
You could try undoing this: /* ARM old ABI has some weird alignment/padding */ and just define __arch_pack to nothing unconditionally, to see if that's what broke... Or if someone can provide an xfs.
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00014.html (11,539 bytes)

4. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:42:53 -0500
Ok, actually: first - sorry for the scattershot replies. I thought userspace was updated earlier, but: xfsprogs-2.10.1 (5 September 2008)... - Add packed on-disk shortform directory for ARM's old ABI
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00015.html (11,222 bytes)

5. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:25:01 +0200
Hi Eric, I tried to reproduce this problem on my ARM machine and it's really easy to trigger. See the transcript below. I tried with 2.6.26.6 (without the ARM old ABI fix) and 2.6.27 (with the fix),
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00318.html (13,091 bytes)

6. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:13:51 -0500
Thanks; a quick look at the disk structure sizes & offsets shows no differences (as I'd hope/expect for ARM EABI). So is this a regression? did it used to work? If so, when? :) (just for the record;
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00319.html (14,946 bytes)

7. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:01:09 +0200
* Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2008-10-16 17:13]: The original report was with 2.6.18 but that was with the old ABI: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=423562 I just installed a
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00336.html (11,085 bytes)

8. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:46:15 +0200
As far as I can remember (I only used old ABI arm) this is not a regression. XFS never worked on arm for me. If you need tests on old ABI just tell me. -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try agai
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00337.html (11,787 bytes)

9. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:49:33 -0500
Ok; I think there are probably a few problems, so trying to keep them straight. I at least had xfs working properly in a qemu arm emulator a few weeks ago... :) ok, thanks! -Eric
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00341.html (11,646 bytes)

10. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:15:43 -0500
Ok, that's a little odd. (correlates with the "bad" magic that was seen, because block 0 is the superblock, but doesn't make sense because we were trying to read a directory leaf block, in theory) If
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00342.html (12,974 bytes)

11. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:57:56 +0200
* Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2008-10-17 09:15]: I cannot even mount it: debian:~# mkfs.xfs -f /dev/sda5 meta-data=/dev/sda5 isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=94380 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2 data =
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00351.html (12,390 bytes)

12. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:11:14 +0200
I tried xfs both on the old and new ABI. (my first try was Jan 2008, old ABI) ASAIR at kernel version 2.6.18
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00352.html (11,675 bytes)

13. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:48:57 -0500
Oh, wow. This sounds like a new problem then; not a cache problem, and not an alignment problem... hrm. I'll try to think of something else to try. Thanks, -Eric
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00357.html (11,371 bytes)

14. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:48:53 +0300
You are wrong. Our team have experience with XFS on ARM OABI on NAS. It worked fine on 2.6.12, but got broken on 2.6.17. http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=712 -- Regards, Kirill A. Shutemov
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00358.html (12,408 bytes)

15. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:09:39 -0400
So any chance to bisect it down to at least a kernel release where it stopped working?
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00359.html (11,630 bytes)

16. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:17:50 +0300
I'll try to do it. -- Regards, Kirill A. Shutemov + Belarus, Minsk + ALT Linux Team, http://www.altlinux.com/ Attachment: signature.asc Description: Digital signature
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00360.html (12,303 bytes)

17. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:48:30 +1100
That's the log replay indicating that there's a bad transaction header in the log. Very strange - it shoul dbe a clean log. What does xfs_logprint -t /dev/sda5 tell you about the transactions in the
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00364.html (12,996 bytes)

18. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:06:45 -0500
This is probably the vmap cache aliasing problem that we paid a bit of attention to a few months ago, no? -Eric
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00365.html (12,579 bytes)

19. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 07:12:47 +0200
* Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2008-10-19 12:48]: mdebian:~# mkfs.xfs -f /dev/sda5 meta-data=/dev/sda5 isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=94380 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2 data = bsize=4096 blocks=37751
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00366.html (11,391 bytes)

20. Re: XFS filesystem corruption on the arm(el) architecture (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 05:07:02 -0400
Shouldn't the cachepolicy switch take care of that? But yes, there are various problems with I/O on vmap regions with virtually indexed caches, see: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-arch/msg04301.h
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00368.html (11,653 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu