On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:49:13AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> The good news about this one is that it is very clear cut. The hard
> part is figuring out where these bogus link counts came from.
>
> I'd suggest that you spend some time running memtest on the machine.
Just to add some evidence from the log:
Nov 28 00:11:14 karl-workstation kernel: [212918.235050] kernel BUG at
/home/apw/COD/linux/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4775!
Nov 28 00:11:14 karl-workstation kernel: [212918.235118] RAX:
00000000ea000001 RBX: ffff880412c3ab40 RCX: ffff880380173900
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
4765 ret = btrfs_search_slot(trans, extent_root,
4766 &key, path, -1, 1);
4767 if (ret) {
4768 printk(KERN_ERR "umm, got %d back from search"
4769 ", was looking for %llu\n", ret,
4770 (unsigned long long)bytenr);
4771 if (ret > 0)
4772 btrfs_print_leaf(extent_root,
4773 path->nodes[0]);
4774 }
4775 BUG_ON(ret);
the ret value comes from btrfs_search_slot, returning " < 0" or 1, but
RAX has some extra bits set, this could really be a RAM failure.
david
--
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
