On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:53:22PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Testing isn't done yet, but xfs/222 seems to be blowing up at > ASSERT(!rwsem_is_locked(&inode->i_rwsem)) in xfs_super.c fairly > consistently with blocksize=1k. I haven't been able to reproduce it > quickly (i.e. without running the whole test suite) so I can't tell if > that's a side effect of something else blowing up or what. generic/300 > seems to blow up periodically and then blows the same assert on umount, > also in the 1k case. xfs/348 fuzzes the fs, causes "kernel memory > exposure!" BUGs and then asserts with the same i_rwsem thing. I'll take a look at the umount assert while you're asleep. 348 is a pretty new test, so I doubt it's a regrewssion. > (You'll note I didn't merge the duplicate "xfs: improve handling of busy > extents in the low-level allocator"; if you want that done, please let me > know.) Yes, it should be folded into the first patch of that name and descriptions. It contains the fixups that Brian requested. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
