On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 15:13 -0400, Jim Rees wrote: > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 02:54:15PM -0400, Jim Rees wrote: > > xfstests does require a small patch to work with NFSv4, which I can supply > > if anyone is interested. > > Please send it to xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx with a proper description and signoff. > > I don't have a proper patch, just one that works for me. But I'll send a > bug report. It has to do with the mismatch between nfs and nfs4 mount > types, so it's not really a xfstests bug. I think this will fix itself when > the nfsvers=4 changes fully propagate. > > It seems like you didn't set up the SCRATCH_DEV variable properly. > > I was just skipping those tests so I could get to the one that fails. I've > also tested with the SCRATCH_DEV tests in other runs. > > > Message from syslogd@rhcl1 at Jul 29 14:42:05 ... > > kernel:------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > > Message from syslogd@rhcl1 at Jul 29 14:42:05 ... > > kernel:invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP > > > > Message from syslogd@rhcl1 at Jul 29 14:42:05 ... > > kernel:Stack: > > > > Message from syslogd@rhcl1 at Jul 29 14:42:05 ... > > kernel:Call Trace: > > > > Message from syslogd@rhcl1 at Jul 29 14:42:05 ... > > Looks like we did find a bug in NFS. > > It kind of looks that way. Is that reproducible on the upstream kernel, or is it something that is being introduced by the pNFS blocks code? -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
