From: Bernd Schubert Subject: Re: [PATCH] make ext4_valid_block_bitmap() more verbose Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:22:58 +0100 Message-ID: <4CE18892.9020908@ddn.com> References: <201011130026.51268.bs_lists@aakef.fastmail.fm> <4CE15DF8.4030600@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigC3C33BF9C36ABC1BB0064DF2" Cc: Bernd Schubert , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , Andreas Dilger To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from mail.datadirectnet.com ([74.62.46.229]:30378 "EHLO mail.datadirectnet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933436Ab0KOTXC (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:23:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4CE15DF8.4030600@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --------------enigC3C33BF9C36ABC1BB0064DF2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/15/2010 05:21 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 11/12/10 5:26 PM, Bernd Schubert wrote: >> The real issue we want to debug with the patch below actually came up = while=20 >> stress testing Lustre using the RHEL5.5 kernel (so 2.6.32'ish ext4), b= ut a=20 >> more verbose error function should not hurt for vanilla ext4 either. >> >> make ext4_valid_block_bitmap() more verbose >> >> While running our stress test suite, ext4_valid_block_bitmap()=20 >> frequently complains about an invalid block bitmap. >> However, e2fsck does not find anything. So in oder to be able >> to better debug this issue, make the function more verbose and=20 >> let it complain about the two possible invalid bitmaps. >=20 > Making a raw e2image of the problematic filesystem would let us take a > look at why e2fsck isn't finding problems; unless you plan to fix that > yourself as well, which is just fine of course. :) >=20 I already captured an e2image and will do again on Wednesday, now that I could reproduce it again with the updated code. Unfortunately no time before. Will try to check out myself with debugfs first, if there is really something wrong. It might be a race in the code as well... Cheers, Bernd --------------enigC3C33BF9C36ABC1BB0064DF2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkzhiJIACgkQqh74FqyuOzRa1gCgveZvUIjiSikatw07BLrbnm/7 1gMAn14TFfgCLA3oAwyWQY96+EP/vzsp =Hn8h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigC3C33BF9C36ABC1BB0064DF2--