Thanks Qu, removing BTRFS_I from the inode fixes this issue to me. Greets, Stefan
Am 14.03.2017 um 03:50 schrieb Qu Wenruo: > > > At 03/13/2017 09:26 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> >> Am 13.03.2017 um 08:39 schrieb Qu Wenruo: >>> >>> >>> At 03/13/2017 03:26 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >>>> Hi Qu, >>>> >>>> Am 13.03.2017 um 02:16 schrieb Qu Wenruo: >>>> >>>> But wasn't this part of the code identical in V5? Why does it only >>>> happen with V7? >>> >>> There are still difference, but just as you said, the related >>> part(checking if inode is free space cache inode) is identical across v5 >>> and v7. >> >> But if i boot v7 it always happens. If i boot v5 it always works. Have >> done 5 repeatet tests. > > I rechecked the code change between v7 and v5. > > It turns out that, the code base may cause the problem. > > In v7, the base is v4.11-rc1, which introduced quite a lot of > btrfs_inode cleanup. > > One of the difference is the parameter for btrfs_is_free_space_inode(). > > In v7, the parameter @inode changed from struct inode to struct > btrfs_inode. > > So in v7, we're passing BTRFS_I(inode) to btrfs_is_free_space_inode(), > other than plain inode. > > That's the most possible cause for me here. > > So would you please paste the final patch applied to your tree? > Git diff or git format-patch can both handle it. > > Thanks, > Qu > >> >>> I'm afraid that's a rare race leading to NULL btrfs_inode->root, which >>> could happen in both v5 and v7. >>> >>> What's the difference between SUSE and mainline kernel? >> >> A lot ;-) But i don't think anything related. >> >>> Maybe some mainline kernel commits have already fixed it? >> >> May be no idea. But i haven't found any reason why v5 works. >> >> Stefan >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Qu >>>> > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
