Re: [Bug 14354] Re: ext4 increased intolerance to unclean shutdown?

[Eric Sandeen]

Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 04:38:57PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > I've been running my testcase, and I just hit the usual corruption with  
> > this patch in place after 8 iterations, I'm afraid.
>
> Eric, since you have a relatively controllable reproduction case, have
> you tried reproducing Alexey's bisection results?  Specifically he
> seemed to find that commit fe188c0e shows no problem, and commit
> 91ac6f43 is the first commit with problems?

I can try it but I have very little faith in that result to be honest.

> Having to do multiple iterations will make doing a bisection a major
> pain, but maybe we'll get something out of that.

Well I've been doing bisects but I'm getting skeptical of the results; 
either my testcase isn't reliable enough or all the merges are confusing 
git-bisect (?)  Anyway it keeps ending up on nonsensical commits.

> Other things that might be worth doing given that you have a test case
> would be to try reverting commit 91ac6f43, and see if that helps, and
> to try this patch: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=23468
>
> Or have you tried some of these experiments already?
>
> Regards,
>
> 						- Ted

After talking to Aneesh last night, I think other good spot-checks will 
be to revert 487caeef9fc08c0565e082c40a8aaf58dad92bbb, and to test Jan's 
sync patches.

-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/