From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext/super.c:428 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:48:13 +0000 Message-ID: <496D526D.1010402@linux.intel.com> References: <20090110003645.GA16107@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20090113164842.c6aa7095.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090114014434.GE14730@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Theodore Tso , Andrew Morton , "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kerne Return-path: Received: from mga10.intel.com ([192.55.52.92]:9672 "EHLO fmsmga102.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751393AbZANCs3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:48:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090114014434.GE14730@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 04:48:42PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >> Well that's not good. I don't recall us making any changes which >> affect the orphan list handling. Perhaps "filesystem freeze: add error >> handling of write_super_lockfs/unlockfs", but only indirectly. >> >> Does Arjan's new async stuff play with filesystems at umount/shutdown >> time? Don't think so. > > Well, Arjan's commit, efaee192: "async: make the final inode deletion > an asynchronous event", does change how inodes get deleted, and this > looks like a race where an inode is getting deleted during the umount. > > So I would try reverting commit efaee192 and see if it fixes things > before starting a full bisect... the commit is already reverted before rc1