On Wed, Mar 30 2016, Yan, Zheng wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:24 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 25 2016, Ilya Dryomov wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:02 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Mar 06 2016, Sage Weil wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Linus, >>>>> >>>>> Please pull the following Ceph patch from >>>>> >>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git for-linus >>>>> >>>>> This is a final commit we missed to align the protocol compatibility with >>>>> the feature bits. It decodes a few extra fields in two different messages >>>>> and reports EIO when they are used (not yet supported). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> sage >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Yan, Zheng (1): >>>>> ceph: initial CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 support >>>> >>>> Just wondering, but was CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 supposed to have >>>> exactly the same value as CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (and >>>> CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5)?? >>> >>> Yes, that was the point of getting it merged into -rc7. >> >> I did wonder if that might be the case. >> >>> >>>> Because when I backported this patch (and many others) to some ancient >>>> enterprise kernel, it caused mounts to fail. If it really is meant to >>>> be the same value, then I must have some other backported issue to find >>>> and fix. >>> >>> It has to be backported in concert with changes that add support for >>> the other two bits. >> >> I have everything from fs/ceph and net/ceph as of 4.5, with adjustments >> for different core code. >> >>> How did mount fail? >> >> "can't read superblock". >> dmesg contains >> >> [ 50.822479] libceph: client144098 fsid 2b73bc29-3e78-490a-8fc6-21da1bf901ba >> [ 50.823746] libceph: mon0 192.168.1.122:6789 session established >> [ 51.635312] ceph: problem parsing mds trace -5 >> [ 51.635317] ceph: mds parse_reply err -5 >> [ 51.635318] ceph: mdsc_handle_reply got corrupt reply mds0(tid:1) >> >> then a hex dump of header:, front: footer: >> >> Maybe my MDS is causing the problem? It is based on v10.0.5 which >> contains >> >> #define CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5 (1ULL<<58) /* chooseleaf stable mode */ >> // duplicated since it was introduced at the same time as CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUN >> #define CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (1ULL<<58) /* New, v7 encoding */ >> >> in ceph_features.h i.e. two features using bit 58, but not >> FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 >> >> Should I expect Linux 4.5 to work with ceph 10.0.5 ?? > > Sorry, cephfs in linux 4.5 does not work with 10.0.5. Please upgrade > to ceph 10.1.0 > Ahhh.. I do wonder at the point of feature flags if they don't let you run any client with any server... Is there a compatability matrix published somewhere? If I have to stay with 10.0.5 (I don't know yet), it is safe to use Linux-4.4 code? Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
