On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> I got the error while I was compiling XFree86 4 CVS and kernel. So
> that's what I've been doing in multiples along witha couple otehr things
> thrown inthe mix to generate lots of disk i/o.
Error messages would be interesting... So far we have _both_ 2.95 and 2.91
involved, raid and non-raid alike. Just fscking peachy... OK, let's try
to eliminate ext2 changes (if that helps we have a big problem somewhere,
but that's at least something):
patch -p1 -R <<EOF
--- rc11-pre5/fs/ext2/ialloc.c Wed Oct 4 03:44:54 2000
+++ rc11-pre6/fs/ext2/ialloc.c Fri Nov 17 02:23:19 2000
@@ -274,15 +274,13 @@
return NULL;
}
- inode = get_empty_inode ();
+ sb = dir->i_sb;
+ inode = new_inode(sb);
if (!inode) {
*err = -ENOMEM;
return NULL;
}
- sb = dir->i_sb;
- inode->i_sb = sb;
- inode->i_flags = 0;
lock_super (sb);
es = sb->u.ext2_sb.s_es;
repeat:
@@ -430,9 +428,6 @@
mark_buffer_dirty(sb->u.ext2_sb.s_sbh);
sb->s_dirt = 1;
inode->i_mode = mode;
- inode->i_sb = sb;
- inode->i_nlink = 1;
- inode->i_dev = sb->s_dev;
inode->i_uid = current->fsuid;
if (test_opt (sb, GRPID))
inode->i_gid = dir->i_gid;
EOF
Notice that if reverting that change stops the fs corruption we _still_
have a problem - the only case when it could help is if something touches
an inode allocated by get_empty_inode() before it gets included into the
hash.
BTW, folks, while we are looking at the configurations - how about highmem
and SMP vs. UP?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
