Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*crash\s+with\s+latest\s+code\s+drop\.\s*$/: 51 ]

Total 51 documents matching your query.

1. crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:49:20 +1000
Hi Dave and list, I hit the following crash with the latest code drop that was pushed in yesterday while running test 177 in a loop, after 4-5 loops it crashed as follows: "<0>general protection faul
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00238.html (12,699 bytes)

2. Re: crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:18:57 +1100
.... I think you'll find it's VN_DIRTY() here: 158 /* 159 * If we have to flush data or wait for I/O completion 160 * we need to drop the ilock that we currently hold. 161 * If we need to drop the lo
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00240.html (17,987 bytes)

3. Re: crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:29:49 -0400
Might be betters as if (!igrab(inode)) { /* leave it to reclaim */ read_unlock(&pag->pag_ici_lock); continue; } read_unlock(&pag->pag_ici_lock); xfs_ilock(ip, lock_flags); which then also shows that
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00251.html (9,475 bytes)

4. Re: crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:47:06 +1000
Dave Chinner wrote: Can you confirm that the xfs_inode has either the I_RECLAIM or I_RECLAIMABLE flag set on it when the panic occurred? If this is the case, then the patch below will probably fix it
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00254.html (8,708 bytes)

5. Re: crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:16:46 +1100
Yes, saner and more consistent with other code to do it that way. Here's an updated patch that takes into account all this. it removes a fair chunk of code now.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00258.html (16,511 bytes)

6. Re: crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:24:31 -0400
Aka xfs_iput(ip, lock_flags);
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00259.html (9,048 bytes)

7. Re: crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:51:16 +1100
Update below. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx XFS: avoid all reclaimable inodes in xfs_sync_inodes_ag If we are syncing data in xfs_sync_inodes_ag(), the VFS inode must still be ref
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00260.html (15,818 bytes)

8. Re: crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:50:48 +1000
Dave Chinner wrote: Update below. Cheers, Dave. The original patch appeared to fix the issue, however the latest one Oops as follows: 177 553s ...BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00262.html (13,972 bytes)

9. Re: crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: )
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:19:17 +1100
Well, I think the problem dhould be obvious - it's the same as the first report - deferencing the linux inode without first having a refernce on it. FWIW, if you apply the "combine linux/xfs inode" p
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00274.html (16,690 bytes)

10. Re: crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:51:32 +1000
Dave Chinner wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 03:50:48PM +1000, Peter Leckie wrote: Dave Chinner wrote: Update below. Cheers, Dave. The original patch appeared to fix the issue, however the latest one
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00275.html (10,508 bytes)

11. Re: crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:43:10 +1000
- it's the same as the first report - deferencing the linux inode without first having a refernce on it. Yes it resolves the issue. I spoke to soon, Ooops as follows: <1>BUG: unable to handle kernel
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00286.html (12,797 bytes)

12. Re: crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:55:30 +1100
.... Yes, or you could simply apply the "combine linux/XFS inode" patch series and then VFS_I(ip) will never, ever return NULL. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00301.html (11,199 bytes)

13. Re: crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:00:30 -0400
This would be the correct fix for the current code, but can you please put in the Inode/XFS Inode unification patches? At least I have only QAed the whole patchkit, and from the issues here it seems
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00307.html (11,090 bytes)

14. Re: crash with latest code drop. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:01:46 +1000
Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:43:10PM +1000, Peter Leckie wrote: Adding the following resolved the issue however you may wish to solve it in another manner. @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00325.html (11,872 bytes)

15. liverable mail: Арендаторы Москвы! Последняя возможность выкупа по 159-ФЗ (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:19:05 +1100
Can this patch be applied to the new sync code before it is pushed to Linus? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00457.html (18,781 bytes)

16. partially initialized inodes using destroy_inode (score: 1)
Author: @xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:23:59 +1000
Hey Dave I'll push it now, I assume it's ok to go in with out the check for a inode first as the combine linux/XFS inode patch is in. Thanks, Pete Dave Chinner wrote: Ping? Can this patch be applied
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00499.html (16,529 bytes)

17. 2.6.26.5): Samba & root-read-only (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:39:12 +1100
Yes, it's safe to go in as it stands. Thanks. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00502.html (9,900 bytes)

18. - fix instant oops with tracing enabled (score: 1)
Author: roy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:49:20 +1000
Hi Dave and list, I hit the following crash with the latest code drop that was pushed in yesterday while running test 177 in a loop, after 4-5 loops it crashed as follows: "<0>general protection faul
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01059.html (12,485 bytes)

19. : [PATCH 3/5] Inode: Allow external initialisers (score: 1)
Author: <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:18:57 +1100
.... I think you'll find it's VN_DIRTY() here: 158 /* 159 * If we have to flush data or wait for I/O completion 160 * we need to drop the ilock that we currently hold. 161 * If we need to drop the lo
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01061.html (17,808 bytes)

20. fw: [PATCH] fix instant oops with tracing enabled (score: 1)
Author: g <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:29:49 -0400
Might be betters as if (!igrab(inode)) { /* leave it to reclaim */ read_unlock(&pag->pag_ici_lock); continue; } read_unlock(&pag->pag_ici_lock); xfs_ilock(ip, lock_flags); which then also shows that
/archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01071.html (9,296 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu