Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-16 17:13]: >> So is this a regression? did it used to work? If so, when? :) > > 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 2.6.22 kernel with EABI and I can also trigger > the bug. So it's not a (recent) regression. > >> What's a little odd is that the buffer it dumped out looks like the >> beginning of a perfectly valid superblock for your filesystem >> (magic, block size, and block count all match). If you printk the >> "bno" variable right around line 2106 in xfs_da_btree.c, can you see >> what you get? > > bno is 0.
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 you unmount & remount, does the ls work then? >> creating an xfs_metadump of the filesystem for examination on a >> non-arm box might also be interesting. > > http://www.cyrius.com/tmp/dump5 > (11 MB) Thanks. xfs_repair on x86 shows no errors; however it won't mount normally (bad log clientid) - but mount -o norecovery,ro and subsequent ls works fine (at first I thought filenames were badly scrambled but then remembered that xfs_metadump does this by default ;)) The remaining problem that I know of on some arm architectures is a vmap cache aliasing problem that usually shows up as log corruption; that may explain the bad clientid thing but not sure why we're reading block 0 above. Do you know what cachepolicy you're booted with? If it's writeallocate, you might try cachepolicy=writeback, otherwise try cachepolicy=uncached (which will be horribly slow) and see if the problem goes away or not; it'd be a clue. -Eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
