On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 12:53:54AM -0600, Daniel J Blueman wrote: > On 4 July 2012 13:19, Liu Bo <liubo2009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 07/04/2012 11:37 AM, Daniel J Blueman wrote: > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> I've got a nice set of fixes from Josef, Jan, Ilya and others in my > >>> for-linus branch: > >>> > >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus > >>> > >>> Some of the changes are fixes for the tree logging code, so I ran some > >>> extra crash runs against them Friday night. > >>> > >>> I ended up with a new crash in the tree log directory deletion replay > >>> code, so I didn't send out the pull request to Linus. > >>> > >>> It isn't clear yet if the new crash is because I was testing differently > >>> or if it is a regression. I'm nailing it down this weekend, but please > >>> give my for-linus a shot. > >> > >> I consistently run into this assertion [1] while running a fio > >> workload on a fresh RAID10 filesystem with a balance running. > >> > >> Let me know if you need steps to reproduce, debug etc. > > > > Seems that additional condition does not catch the bug. > > > > Plz show us the steps to reproduce, I'll try to reproduce it locally and nail it down. > > The reproducer auto-generated from my test [1] consistently hits the > spot here; config @ http://quora.org/2012/kconfig-btrfs . You'll need > the fio workload file [2] in the same dir. > Wow I hit this straight away, I will look into it, thanks! Josef -- 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
