On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 12:26:22PM +0300, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 17:29:21 -0600 > Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 12/29/12 4:51 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > > On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 14:20:29 -0600 > > > Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >>> Panic showed all my drives and partitions which means > > >>> they were detected correctly. > > > > > >> Was it a panic, or was it simply a very verbose message which contained a backtrace? > > > > > >> Can you please include what you actually saw in your logs? > > > > > > Yes, it was a panic. Box did not boot (i would not bisect it otherwise). > > > I won't have access to real box thus I've reproduced it in minimal > > > UML: > > > > > > Current usermode linux perfectly reproduces the problem as well: > > > > > > $ cat ./run_ubda_fails > > > #!/bin/sh > > > > > > ./vmlinux \ > > > ubd0=$(pwd)/1G.img \ > > > root=/dev/ubda \ > > > rw \ > > > mem=256M \ > > > umid=foo \ > > > \ > > > "$@" > > > reset > > > > > > $ cat ./run_ubda > > > #!/bin/sh > > > > > > ./vmlinux \ > > > ubd0=$(pwd)/1G.img \ > > > root=/dev/ubda \ > > > rw rootfstype=btrfs \ > > > mem=256M \ > > > umid=foo \ > > > \ > > > "$@" > > > reset > > > > > > Note the rootfstype in the workign case. I've included only EXT4=y XFS=y and BTRFS=y > > > as supported FSen. The UML OOps: > > > > > > [ 0.170000] VFS: Cannot open root device "ubda" or unknown-block(98,0): error -117 > > > > Oh, ok, so it was panicing due to inability to mount root; not xfs itself panicing. > > > > Were there any messages from xfs prior to this? > > > > Especially if there were none, this might fix it, though TBH it's just > > a quick guess, I haven't really looked at how the probing works at > > boot time recently. Can you test it? > > > > From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Do not return EFSCORRUPTED when filesystem probe finds no XFS magic > > > > 9802182 changed the return value from EWRONGFS (aka EINVAL) > > to EFSCORRUPTED which doesn't seem to be handled properly by > > the root filesystem probe. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Yeah, you patch is nicer. xfs_mount_validate_sb does the similar thing. > Thanks! > > Tested-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@xxxxxxxxxx> Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
