On 08/06/2011 04:35 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
When btrfs recovers from a crash, it may hit the oops below: ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:4580! [...] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffffa03df251>] [<ffffffffa03df251>] btrfs_add_link+0x161/0x1c0 [btrfs] [...] Call Trace: [<ffffffffa03e7b31>] ? btrfs_inode_ref_index+0x31/0x80 [btrfs] [<ffffffffa04054e9>] add_inode_ref+0x319/0x3f0 [btrfs] [<ffffffffa0407087>] replay_one_buffer+0x2c7/0x390 [btrfs] [<ffffffffa040444a>] walk_down_log_tree+0x32a/0x480 [btrfs] [<ffffffffa0404695>] walk_log_tree+0xf5/0x240 [btrfs] [<ffffffffa0406cc0>] btrfs_recover_log_trees+0x250/0x350 [btrfs] [<ffffffffa0406dc0>] ? btrfs_recover_log_trees+0x350/0x350 [btrfs] [<ffffffffa03d18b2>] open_ctree+0x1442/0x17d0 [btrfs] [...] This comes from that while replaying an inode ref item, we forget to check those old conflicting DIR_ITEM and DIR_INDEX items in fs/file tree, then we will come to conflict corners which lead to BUG_ON(). Signed-off-by: Liu Bo<liubo2009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
This fixes the oops for me. The bug was a regression in 2.6.39, I believe. Tested-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxx> --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
