[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52C6F28A.6060706@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 11:25:30 -0600
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: "Juergens Dirk (CM-AI/ECO2)" <Dirk.Juergens@...bosch.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"Huang Weller (CM/ESW12-CN)" <Weller.Huang@...bosch.com>
CC: "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: AW: ext4 filesystem bad extent error review
On 1/3/14, 10:29 AM, Juergens Dirk (CM-AI/ECO2) wrote:
> So, I think there _might_ be a kernel bug, but it could be also a problem
> related to the particular type of eMMC. We did not observe the same issue
> in previous tests with another type of eMMC from another supplier, but this
> was with an older kernel patch level and with another HW design.
>
> Regarding a possible kernel bug: Is there any chance that the invalid
> ee_len or ee_start are returned by, e.g., the block allocator ?
> If so, can we try to instrument the code to get suitable traces ?
> Just to see or to exclude that the corrupted inode is really written
> to the eMMC ?
>From your description it does sound possible that it's a kernel bug.
Adding testcases to the code to catch it before it hits the journal
might be helpful - but then maybe this is something getting overwritten
after the fact - hard to say.
Can you share more details of the test you are running? Or maybe even
the test itself?
I've used a test framework in the past to simulate resets w/o needing
to reset the box, and do many journal replays very quickly. It'd be
interesting to run it using your testcase.
Thanks,
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists