Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:26:27 +0100 Bart Dopheide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:05:45PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>> :)On Wednesday 13 February 2008 08:50, Alan Cox wrote:
>> :)> Almost certainly a hardware fail of some sort.
>> :)
>> :)Right, but the kernel shouldn't go bug...
>>
>> Indeed, that's why I'm reporting.
>>
>>
>> :)I don't have a copy of your exact source code... which condition in
>> :)__mpage_writepage went BUG?
>>
>> BUG_ON(buffer_locked(bh));
>>
>> In a bit of context:
>> 482: if (page_has_buffers(page)) {
>> 483: struct buffer_head *head = page_buffers(page);
>> 484: struct buffer_head *bh = head;
>> 485:
>> 486: /* If they're all mapped and dirty, do it */
>> 487: page_block = 0;
>> 488: do {
>> 489: BUG_ON(buffer_locked(bh));
>> 490: if (!buffer_mapped(bh)) {
>> 491: /*
>> 492: * unmapped dirty buffers are created by
>> 493: * __set_page_dirty_buffers -> mmapped data
>> 494: */
>> 495: if (buffer_dirty(bh))
>> 496: goto confused;
>> 497: if (first_unmapped == blocks_per_page)
>> 498: first_unmapped = page_block;
>> 499: continue;
>> 500: }
>>
>
> Probably means that either fat, IDE, block or fs/buffer.c failed to unlock a
> buffer_head
> when the IO error happened. It's unlikely to be fat.
Yes. FAT does almost nothing on this path. Um...
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
