[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200710191703.12026.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:03:11 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
Cc: dwmw2@...radead.org, jffs-dev@...s.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: BUG at mm/filemap.c:1749 (2.6.24, jffs2, unionfs)
On Friday 19 October 2007 16:05, Erez Zadok wrote:
> David,
>
> I'm testing unionfs on top of jffs2, using 2.6.24 as of linus's commit
> 4fa4d23fa20de67df919030c1216295664866ad7. All of my unionfs tests pass
> when unionfs is stacked on top of jffs2, other than my truncate test --
> whic tries to truncate files up/down (through the union, which then is
> passed through to the lower jffs2 f/s). The same truncate test passes on
> all other file systems I've tried unionfs/2.6.24 with, as well as all of
> the earlier kernels that unionfs runs on (2.6.9--2.6.23). So I tend to
> think this bug is more probably due to something else going on in 2.6.24,
> possibly wrt jffs2/mtd. (Of course, it's still possible that unionfs isn't
> doing something right -- any pointers?)
>
> The oops trace is included below. Is this a known issue and if so, any
> fixes? If this is the first you hear of this problem, let me know and I'll
> try to narrow it down further.
It's had quite a lot of recent changes in that area -- the "new aops"
patches.
They've been getting quite a bit of testing in -mm and no such problems,
but I doubt anyone was doing much unionfs over jffs2, or even much jffs2
testing with -mm.
The bug smells like jffs2 is actually passing back a "written" length
greater than the length we passed into it.
The following might show what's happening.
View attachment "mm-debug.patch" of type "text/x-diff" (739 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists