I did more tests, this time with gcc 3.3 rather than 3.4 just in case... http://people.msoe.edu/~maciejej/patches/AMD64_reiser4_debug/12-08-04/test1/ http://people.msoe.edu/~maciejej/patches/AMD64_reiser4_debug/12-08-04/test2/
test1 panicked with the usual failed assertion in reiser4_find_next_zero_bit, but test2 did the following: reiser4[fixdep(10653)]: parse_node40 (fs/reiser4/plugin/node/node40.c:767)[nikita-494]: code: -2 at fs/reiser4/search.c:1285 WARNING: Wrong level found in node: 1 != 0 reiser4[fixdep(10653)]: parse_node40 (fs/reiser4/plugin/node/node40.c:767)[nikita-494]: code: -2 at fs/reiser4/search.c:1221 WARNING: Wrong level found in node: 1 != 0 reiser4[fixdep(10653)]: make_space_by_shift_left (fs/reiser4/carry_ops.c:963)[vs-899]: code: -5 at fs/reiser4/plugin/node/node40.c:778 WARNING: make_space_by_shift_left: error accessing left neighbor: -5 reiser4[fixdep(10653)]: node_plugin_by_node (fs/reiser4/tree.h:282)[vs-214]: code: -5 at fs/reiser4/plugin/node/node40.c:778 reiser4 panicked cowardly: assertion failed: znode_is_loaded(node) ----------- [cut here ] --------- [please bite here ] --------- ... (see link) On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 11:26 -0600, Jake Maciejewski wrote: > My tests are always on newly-made filesystems. I'll revert the 10 Nov. > patch, double check the code to make sure everything's patched right, > recompile, and test again. > > On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 19:24 +0300, Alex Zarochentsev wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 03:46:58PM -0600, Jake Maciejewski wrote: > > > With this patch get > > > > > > reiser4[cc1(10284)]: check_blocks_bitmap > > > (fs/reiser4/plugin/space/bitmap.c:1174)[zam-623]: > > > code: -2 at fs/reiser4/search.c:1285 > > > reiser4 panicked cowardly: assertion failed: > > > reiser4_find_next_zero_bit(bnode_working_data(bnode), end_offset, > > > start_offset) >= end_offset > > > > did you begin the tests with mkfs.reiser4 /dev/.... ? > > > > > > > > details at > > > http://people.msoe.edu/~maciejej/patches/AMD64_reiser4_debug/12-07-04/zam-patch/ > > > > > > which is pretty much the same thing documented in 11-20-04/sync_mount/ , > > > 11-10-04/with_bitmap.c.diff/ , 11-09-04/ , 11-08-04/test2/ , > > > 11-04-04/all-R4/ , and 11-04-04/R3-R4/ > > > > > > > > > When I also used Vladimir's "10 Nov 2004 19:08:47 +0300" bitmap.c.diff, > > > my logs filled (~1.7 million lines) with > > > > > > WARNING: Wrong level found in node: 1 != 0 > > > reiser4[cc1(11554)]: parse_node40 > > > (fs/reiser4/plugin/node/node40.c:767)[nikita-494]: > > > code: -2 at fs/reiser4/search.c:1312 > > > > > > see 12-07-04/both-patches/ > > > > > > The only other time I've seen an error like this was 11-08-04/test1/ > > > repeating > > > > > > WARNING: Failed to delete file body 84672 > > > reiser4[make(22140)]: parse_node40 > > > (fs/reiser4/plugin/node/node40.c:767)[nikita-494]: > > > code: -2 at fs/reiser4/search.c:1278 > > > > > > > > > If you want, I'll run it again and probably hit the > > > reiser4_find_next_zero_bit error instead. I didn't bother with > > > fsck.reiser4 --build-fs and --check because now that I think about it, > > > this isn't the sort of thing fsck needs to be able to fix. If fsck > > > should be able to handle these cases, someone speak up and I'll provide > > > more reports like 11-20-04/sync_mount/corruption/. > > > > > > On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 15:20 +0300, Alex Zarochentsev wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 01:45:40PM -0600, Jake Maciejewski wrote: > > > > > Does this show what you want? > > > > > http://people.msoe.edu/~maciejej/patches/AMD64_reiser4_debug/11-10-04/with_bitmap.c.diff/ > > > > > > > > Please apply the patch below. it definitely fixes one reiser4/amd64 > > > > bug. > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== plugin/space/bitmap.c 1.183 vs edited ===== > > > > --- 1.183/plugin/space/bitmap.c Wed Oct 13 17:22:01 2004 > > > > +++ edited/plugin/space/bitmap.c Sun Dec 5 00:18:55 2004 > > > > @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ > > > > static int > > > > find_next_zero_bit_in_word(ulong_t word, int start_bit) > > > > { > > > > - unsigned int mask = 1 << start_bit; > > > > + ulong_t mask = 1 << start_bit; > > > > int i = start_bit; > > > > > > > > while ((word & mask) != 0) { > > > > @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ > > > > /* search for the first set bit in single word. */ > > > > static int find_last_set_bit_in_word (ulong_t word, int start_bit) > > > > { > > > > - unsigned bit_mask; > > > > + ulong_t bit_mask; > > > > int nr = start_bit; > > > > > > > > assert ("zam-965", start_bit < BITS_PER_LONG); > > > -- > > > Jake Maciejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > -- Jake Maciejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
