The code flow in btrfs_new_inode allows for btrfs_evict_inode to be
called with not fully initialised inode (e.g. ->root member not
being set). This can happen when btrfs_set_inode_index in
btrfs_new_inode fails, which in turn would call iput for the newly
allocated inode. This in turn leads to vfs
When running fstests generic/068, sometimes we got below WARNING:
xfs_io D 8800331dbb20 0 6697 6693 0x0080
8800331dbb20 88007acfc140 880034d895c0 8800331dc000
880032d243e8 fffe 880032d24400 0001
8800331dbb38 fff
Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 8550a0e..520ba8f 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -7747,8 +7747,8 @@ static voi
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Saint Germain wrote:
> Well I made a ddrescue image of both drives (only one error on sdb
> during ddrescue copy) and started the computer again (after
> disconnecting the old drives).
What was the error? Any kernel message at the time of this error?
> I don't
28.06.2016 20:20, Andrei Borzenkov пишет:
> 28.06.2016 19:55, Henk Slager пишет:
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:56 PM, M G Berberich
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Am Montag, den 27. Juni schrieb Henk Slager:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:33 PM, M G Berberich
wrote:
> Am Montag, den 27. J
This test uses the scratch device, so cycle that, not the test dev.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
tests/xfs/128 |7 ---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/xfs/128 b/tests/xfs/128
index 8758d7e..2e756d5 100755
--- a/tests/xfs/128
+++ b/tests/xfs/128
@
We use read_node_slot() to read btree node and it has two cases,
a) slot is out of range, which means 'no such entry'
b) we fail to read the block, due to checksum fails or corrupted
content or not with uptodate flag.
But we're returning NULL in both cases, this makes it return -ENOENT
in case a
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:16:58AM +0200, Peter Becker wrote:
> Cause of kernel bugs was a defective HDD (/dev/sdd).
Thanks for reporting this bug, I can reproduce it, it's due to the fact
that we cannot read a valid btree node from the underlying disks, which
comes from a defective HDD in your ca
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:14:58 -0600, Chris Murphy
wrote :
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Saint Germain
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've tried both option and launched a replace, but I got the same
> > error (replace is cancelled, jernel bug).
> > I will let these options on and attempt a ddrescue on
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Francesco Turco wrote:
> On 2016-06-27 23:26, Henk Slager wrote:
>> btrfs-debug does not show metadata ans system chunks; the balancing
>> problem might come from those.
>> This script does show all chunks:
>> https://github.com/knorrie/btrfs-heatmap/blob/master/sh
I got this warning while mounting a btrfs image,
[ 3020.509606] [ cut here ]
[ 3020.510107] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 5581 at lib/idr.c:1051 ida_remove+0xca/0x190
[ 3020.510853] ida_remove called for id=42 which is not allocated.
[ 3020.511466] Modules linked in:
[ 3020.511802]
Hello!
A patch with this subject was submitted in May 2014:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg33777.html
I don't see it among any of the ~360 open issues at
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&component=btrfs
Unless somebody ob
On 2016-06-28 20:20, Francesco Turco wrote:
> So I'm going to submit a bug as you suggested.
Done: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12
I also found another similar bug:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104821
--
Website: http://www.fturco.net/
GPG key: 6712 2364 B2FE 3
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Francesco Turco wrote:
> On 2016-06-28 20:05, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Well it probably shouldn't crash but the question is why is device 4
>> missing? We have no information what version of btrfs-progs or kernel
>> is used, or what the layout of this volume is: how
On 2016-06-28 20:05, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Well it probably shouldn't crash but the question is why is device 4
> missing? We have no information what version of btrfs-progs or kernel
> is used, or what the layout of this volume is: how many devices,
> what's the profile breakdown, etc. Are you att
On 29/06/16 04:01, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Just wiping the slate clean to summarize:
>
>
> 1. We have a consistent ~1 in 3 maybe 1 in 2, reproducible corruption
> of *data extent* parity during a scrub with raid5. Goffredo and I have
> both reproduced it. It's a big bug. It might still be useful if
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Francesco Turco wrote:
> When trying to repair a btrfs root filesystem I get the following error
> message:
>
> # losetup -f /home/fturco/Buffer/root-20160616.img
> # btrfs check --repair /dev/loop0
> enabling repair mode
> warning, device 4 is missing
> Checking f
Just wiping the slate clean to summarize:
1. We have a consistent ~1 in 3 maybe 1 in 2, reproducible corruption
of *data extent* parity during a scrub with raid5. Goffredo and I have
both reproduced it. It's a big bug. It might still be useful if
someone else can reproduce it too.
Goffredo, can
28.06.2016 19:55, Henk Slager пишет:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:56 PM, M G Berberich
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Am Montag, den 27. Juni schrieb Henk Slager:
>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:33 PM, M G Berberich
>>> wrote:
Am Montag, den 27. Juni schrieb M G Berberich:
> after a balance ‘bt
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:56 PM, M G Berberich wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am Montag, den 27. Juni schrieb Henk Slager:
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:33 PM, M G Berberich
>> wrote:
>> > Am Montag, den 27. Juni schrieb M G Berberich:
>> >> after a balance ‘btrfs filesystem du’ probably shows false data ab
On 28/06/16 22:25, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-06-28 08:14, Steven Haigh wrote:
>> On 28/06/16 22:05, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> On 2016-06-27 17:57, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:17:04AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Austin S
When trying to repair a btrfs root filesystem I get the following error
message:
# losetup -f /home/fturco/Buffer/root-20160616.img
# btrfs check --repair /dev/loop0
enabling repair mode
warning, device 4 is missing
Checking filesystem on /dev/loop0
UUID: 34fb5b58-f50f-47c3-a5b8-91d81a30eade
check
On 2016-06-27 23:47, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> Since the existence of python-btrfs, it has gathered a few useful
> example scripts:
>
> git clone https://github.com/knorrie/python-btrfs
> cd python-btrfs/examples/
> (get root prompt)
>
> ./show_usage.py /mountpoint <- view sorted by 'virtual'
On 2016-06-27 23:26, Henk Slager wrote:
> btrfs-debug does not show metadata ans system chunks; the balancing
> problem might come from those.
> This script does show all chunks:
> https://github.com/knorrie/btrfs-heatmap/blob/master/show_usage.py
>
> You might want to use vrange or drange balance
Hello,
Am Montag, den 27. Juni schrieb Henk Slager:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:33 PM, M G Berberich
> wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 27. Juni schrieb M G Berberich:
> >> after a balance ‘btrfs filesystem du’ probably shows false data about
> >> shared data.
> >
> > Oh, I forgot: I have btrfs-progs v
Hello,
On kernel 4.4.9 I've observed the following oops:
[3248626.755570] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
035c
[3248626.755839] IP: [] btrfs_evict_inode+0x2f/0x610 [btrfs]
[3248626.756079] PGD 1eaf8d067 PUD 4096a0067 PMD 0
[3248626.756383] Oops: [#1]
On 2016-06-28 08:14, Steven Haigh wrote:
On 28/06/16 22:05, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-06-27 17:57, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:17:04AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
On 2016-06-25 12:44, Chris Murphy wrote:
On 28/06/16 22:05, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-06-27 17:57, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:17:04AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
>>> wrote:
On 2016-06-25 12:44, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 a
On 2016-06-27 17:57, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:17:04AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
On 2016-06-25 12:44, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
OK but hold on. During s
On 2016-06-27 23:17, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 08:39:21PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Zygo Blaxell
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:30:23PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
Btrfs does have something of a work around for when things get slow,
and th
Peter Becker posted on Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:16:58 +0200 as excerpted:
> Cause of kernel bugs was a defective HDD (/dev/sdd).
Just a short note to mention that invalid opcode doesn't say much.
I'm just another user and list regular, but apparently, opcode is
used as a deliberate way to
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:14:10PM -0400, je...@suse.com wrote:
> From: Jeff Mahoney
>
> Hi all -
>
> Thanks, Eryu, for the review. The btrfs feature testing changes were a
> patchet I wrote three years ago, and it looks like significant cleanup
> has happened in the xfstests since then. I'm s
Cause of kernel bugs was a defective HDD (/dev/sdd).
The kernel BUG:
May 16 07:41:38 nas kernel: [37168.832800]
btrfs_dev_stat_print_on_error: 470 callbacks suppressed
May 16 07:41:38 nas kernel: [37168.832806] BTRFS error (device sdd):
bdev /dev/sdb errs: wr 49293, rd 567248, flush 0, corrupt 0,
33 matches
Mail list logo
