Another one, with the process running on a btrfs chroot instead of tmpfs:
[12350.410412] [ cut here ]
[12350.420001] kernel BUG at /home/kernel-ppa/COD/linux/fs/btrfs/inode.c:1759!
[12350.420001] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
[12350.420001] last sysfs file:
/sys/devices/pc
On 31/01/11 14:11, cwillu wrote:
> There's a bunch of places it could be (any ret = foo
> followed by a break will exit with that ret rather
> than oops).
Ahh, thanks for that, I plead being a sysadmin rather than
a programmer.. ;-)
--
Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VI
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Chris Samuel wrote:
> On 31/01/11 12:33, cwillu wrote:
>
>> [33159.490003] kernel BUG at
>> /home/kernel-ppa/COD/linux/fs/btrfs/inode.c:1629!
>
> It looks like this happens when btrfs_drop_extents() returns
> an error, and in the code the only time that seems to h
On 31/01/11 12:33, cwillu wrote:
> [33159.490003] kernel BUG at /home/kernel-ppa/COD/linux/fs/btrfs/inode.c:1629!
It looks like this happens when btrfs_drop_extents() returns
an error, and in the code the only time that seems to happen
without already calling BUG_ON() is if it runs out of memory
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 09:27 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 01:58:07PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 09:21:36AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> Various people have complained a
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 10:49 +0100, Arne Jansen wrote:
> Josef Bacik wrote:
> >
> > 1) Scrap the 256 inode number thing. Instead we'll just put a flag in the
> > inode
> > to say "Hey, I'm a subvolume" and then we can do all of the appropriate
> > magic
> > that way. This unfortunately will be
And again, without the USB devices.
This time was under a vanilla 2.6.38rc2 build, rootfs is a 4-drive
btrfs raid10 connected internally via sata, and no other drives in the
picture.
The btrfs drives are sda5, sdb1, sdc1 and sdd1; sda1 is /boot, sda2
is swap, sda3 is a 4gb ext4 with a small inst
Hi, Chris,
(2011/01/29 6:53), Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Tsutomu Itoh's message of 2011-01-21 01:06:29 -0500:
>> (2011/01/21 8:47), Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
>>> (2011/01/21 1:09), Josef Bacik wrote:
I'd rather we go through and have these things return an error than do a
BUG_ON(). We
Excerpts from Li Zefan's message of 2011-01-27 03:42:14 -0500:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Those patches (except the last two) have been sent to the mailing list
> before, and they fix real bugs (but not critical bugs). Please consider
> queue them for 2.6.38.
Thanks, I've got these along with more from Jose
