-> btrfs_cow_block
> >>> > > -> btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I just wonder that whether 4.8.0-rc8-btrfs-next-35+ has
> >>> > >
> >>> > > "[PATCH] Btrfs: fix BUG_ON in btr
s similar to the call chains from Jeff's report,
>>> > > ie.
>>> > > btrfs_del_csums
>>> > > -> btrfs_search_slot
>>> > > -> btrfs_cow_block
>>> > > -> btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty
>>> > &
; > > ie.
>> > > btrfs_del_csums
>> > > -> btrfs_search_slot
>> > > -> btrfs_cow_block
>> > > -> btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty
>> > >
>> > > I just wonder that whether 4.8.0-rc8-btrfs-next-35+ has
>> > >
&g
btrfs_search_slot
> > > -> btrfs_cow_block
> > > -> btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty
> > >
> > > I just wonder that whether 4.8.0-rc8-btrfs-next-35+ has
> > >
> > > "[PATCH] Btrfs: fix BUG_ON in btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty" ?
> >
fer_dirty
> >
> > I just wonder that whether 4.8.0-rc8-btrfs-next-35+ has
> >
> > "[PATCH] Btrfs: fix BUG_ON in btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty" ?
>
> It isn't there, this 4.8.0-rc8-btrfs-next-35+ is a checkout of Chris'
> for-linus-4.9 branch.
> That
; free space 16283
>> [25120.109935] assertion failed: 0, file: fs/btrfs/disk-io.c, line: 4065
>> [25120.111092] [ cut here ]
>> [25120.111875] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/ctree.h:3418!
>> [25120.112615] invalid opcode: [#1] PREEMPT SMP
>> [25120.11
pm_tis tpm_tis_core ppdev tpm sg i2c_piix4 evdev psmouse
> parport_pc parport i2c_core processor serio_raw button pcspkr loop
> autofs4 ext4 crc16 jbd2 mbcache sr_mod cdrom sd_mod ata_generic
> virtio_scsi ata_piix libata virtio_pci virtio_ring floppy virtio
> scsi_mod e1000
> [2512
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> Hi Filipe,
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:28:09PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
>> > This can only happen with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY=y.
>> >
>> > Commit 1ba98d0 ("Btrfs: detect corruption whe
Hi Jeff,
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:25:54AM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> On 9/6/16 5:51 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> > Hi Filipe,
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:28:09PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> >>> This can only happen with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK
On 9/6/16 5:51 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> Hi Filipe,
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:28:09PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
>>> This can only happen with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY=y.
>>>
>>> Commit 1ba98d0 ("Btrfs: detect corruption when non-root leaf h
Hi Filipe,
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:28:09PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> > This can only happen with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY=y.
> >
> > Commit 1ba98d0 ("Btrfs: detect corruption when non-root leaf has zero item")
> > assumes that a leaf i
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> This can only happen with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY=y.
>
> Commit 1ba98d0 ("Btrfs: detect corruption when non-root leaf has zero item")
> assumes that a leaf is its root when leaf->bytenr == btrfs_root_bytenr(root),
> however, we should not use
This can only happen with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY=y.
Commit 1ba98d0 ("Btrfs: detect corruption when non-root leaf has zero item")
assumes that a leaf is its root when leaf->bytenr == btrfs_root_bytenr(root),
however, we should not use btrfs_root_bytenr(root) since it's mainly got
updated d
13 matches
Mail list logo
