https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204049 --- Comment #1 from Luis Chamberlain (mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx) --- I reported an immediate v4.19.58 vanilla crash with generic/388 but with the "xfs_nocrc" and "xfs_reflink" configuration as per oscheck's testing: The "xfs_nocrc": # xfs_info /dev/loop5 meta-data=/dev/loop5 isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=1310720 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1 = crc=0 finobt=0, sparse=0, rmapbt=0 = reflink=0 data = bsize=4096 blocks=5242880, imaxpct=25 = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0, ftype=1 log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=2560, version=2 = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 The "xfs_reflink" configuration: # xfs_info /dev/loop5 meta-data=/dev/loop5 isize=512 agcount=4, agsize=1310720 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1 = crc=1 finobt=1, sparse=1, rmapbt=1 = reflink=1 data = bsize=4096 blocks=5242880, imaxpct=25 = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0, ftype=1 log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=3693, version=2 = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 This is being tracked on this bug report: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204223 The configuration above has rmapbt=1, you have rmapbt=0, at least in discussions over which types of configurations to test for stable long ago on the mailing list using rmapbt=0 with reflink was not one which we set out to cover, so curious what the motivation was for tracking problems with it were now. I'll just refer to this configuration then as "xfs_reflink_normapbt" and I'll consider tracking it for stable depending on why you set out to cover it as well. I cannot reproduce your crash on v4.19.58 with your same configuration, ""xfs_reflink_normapbt", at least so far I've ran the test 15 times in a loop and I see no failure. The other crashes occur within 1-3 times of running the test. How many times did you run the test for it to crash on the system? I'll leave the test running a bit longer just in case. Given what I am seeing though, it seems likely there may be a regression here. Could you bisect? We at least now have an idea of what to expect around the v4.19 for different configurations including yours. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.
