On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:21:59AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>> [ 87.290698] attempt to access beyond end of device > >>>> md0: rw=4096, want=13996467328, limit=6261202944 > >>>> [ 87.293371] attempt to access beyond end of device > >>>> md0: rw=4096, want=13998564480, limit=6261202944 > >>>> [ 87.296045] BTRFS warning (device md0): couldn't read tree root > >>>> [ 87.300056] BTRFS error (device md0): open_ctree failed > >>>> > >>>> Reverting it goes back to the -rc7 behaviour where it mounts fine. > >>> > >>> If the developer/maintainer(s) agree, I can revert this and push out a > >>> 5.10.1, just let me know. > >> > >> Yes, these should be reverted from 5.10 via 5.10.1: > >> > >> e0910c8e4f87 dm raid: fix discard limits for raid1 and raid10 > >> f075cfb1dc59 md: change mddev 'chunk_sectors' from int to unsigned > > > > Sorry, f075cfb1dc59 was my local commit id, the corresponding upstream > > commit as staged by Jens is: > > > > 6ffeb1c3f82 md: change mddev 'chunk_sectors' from int to unsigned > > > > So please revert: > > 6ffeb1c3f822 md: change mddev 'chunk_sectors' from int to unsigned > > and then revert: > > e0910c8e4f87 dm raid: fix discard limits for raid1 and raid10 > > Working with Song on understanding the failure case here. raid6 was > tested prior to this being shipped. We'll be back with more soon... FYI, mixup in my original mail, it was raid5 (I forgot I converted it from raid6->raid5 a few months back). But I wouldn't be surprised if they were both equally affected given what that header touched. Dave
