[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKcLGm86PNyGZStE79Jg9nWygiCaz=fOt6uvOaMA57gnOYo6MA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 12:20:33 -0500
From: Mitch Harder <mitch.harder@...ayonlinux.org>
To: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
Cc: Bobby Powers <bobbypowers@...il.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Btrfs, lockdep: get_restripe_target: use lockdep in BUG_ON
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 12:23:01PM -0400, Bobby Powers wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Bobby Powers <bobbypowers@...il.com> wrote:
>> > spin_is_locked always returns 0 on non-SMP systems, which causes btrfs
>> > to fail the mount. There is documentation pending as to why checking
>>
>> I guess I should be explicit in stating that this is a regression, so
>> this patch or something else that addresses it should be pulled into
>> 3.4.
>
> Yes, this is a regression and spin_is_locked() definitely has to go. I
> don't have a strong opinion on this assert, if there are objections to
> v2 I'm OK with ripping that BUG_ON entirely and replacing it with a
> comment (this function and its callers are WIP).
>
I'm still hitting this BUG_ON after applying this patch on my single
CPU AthlonXP x86 system.
I'm running a 3.3.1 kernel merged with the for-linus branch, and had
this patch applied.
I am currently testing with the BUG_ON commented out. The btrfs
partitions mount without error, and I haven't encountered any
immediate issues.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists