On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 12:15, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > # cat /proc/21024/stack > > [<0>] pipe_wait+0x6c/0xb0 > > [<0>] wait_for_partner+0x19/0x50 > > [<0>] fifo_open+0x266/0x2c0 > > [<0>] do_dentry_open+0x132/0x340 > > [<0>] path_openat+0x334/0x1610 > > [<0>] do_filp_open+0x93/0x100 > > [<0>] do_sys_open+0x186/0x210 > > [<0>] do_syscall_64+0x5b/0x160 > > [<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 > > [<0>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > Hmmm. That's waiting for pipe to connect, not waiting for > an XFS file to open. > > *ding* > > You ran xfs_bmap on a *named pipe*, not a regular file. Yeah, > xfs_bmap is waiting for the other end of the pipe to be > connected to something, which never happens. Only regular files and > directories have extents, so running xfs_bmap on a pipe is not a > useful thing to do. > > Ok, so there's an element of user error here, but xfs_io doesn't > check that it's getting anything other than regular files, > directories or block devices so I'm guessing we'll have to add a > check to error this case out before opening the pipe. Thank you very much, Dave. I may be first tester of this patch. P.S. It looks like email "g@dastard" wrote with error in previous message. -- Best Regards, Mike Gavrilov.
