On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:04:11AM -0400, CAI Qian wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dave Chinner" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: "CAI Qian" <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:46:08 PM > > Subject: Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic > > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:34:07AM -0400, CAI Qian wrote: > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Dave Chinner" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > To: "CAI Qian" <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:07:01 PM > > > > Subject: Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:32:28AM -0400, CAI Qian wrote: > > > > > Just came across when running xfstests using 3.9-rc2 kernel on > > > > > a > > > > > power7 > > > > > box with addition of this patch which fixed a known issue, > > > > > http://people.redhat.com/qcai/stable/01-fix-double-fetch-hlist.patch > > > > > > > > > > The log shows it was happened around test case 370 with > > > > > TEST_PARAM_BLKSIZE = 2048 > > > > > > > > That doesn't sound like xfstests. it only has 305 tests, and no > > > > parameters like TEST_PARAM_BLKSIZE.... > > > Sorry, it is a typo, test case 270 not 370. TEST_PARAM_BLKSIZE was > > > from an internal wrapper to be used to create new filessytem not > > > from the > > > original xfstests. > > > > OK, so that means you're testing 2k filesystem block size on a 64k > > page size machine? > Looks like so. Would that be a problem? It shouldn't be a problem, but nobody else is testing with that config and so you could be seeing problems nobody sees. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
