On 12/17/14 16:02, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 08:35:35PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: >> Hello, >> >> in my test KVM with today's Linus' kernel I'm getting xfs_repair >> complaint about disconnected inodes after the test xfs/261 finishes >> (with success). xfs_repair output is like: >> xfs_repair -n /dev/vdb2 >> Phase 1 - find and verify superblock... >> Phase 2 - using internal log >> - scan filesystem freespace and inode maps... >> - found root inode chunk >> Phase 3 - for each AG... >> - scan (but don't clear) agi unlinked lists... >> - process known inodes and perform inode discovery... >> - agno = 0 >> - agno = 1 >> - agno = 2 >> - agno = 3 >> - process newly discovered inodes... >> Phase 4 - check for duplicate blocks... >> - setting up duplicate extent list... >> - check for inodes claiming duplicate blocks... >> - agno = 0 >> - agno = 1 >> - agno = 2 >> - agno = 3 >> No modify flag set, skipping phase 5 >> Phase 6 - check inode connectivity... >> - traversing filesystem ... >> - traversal finished ... >> - moving disconnected inodes to lost+found ... >> disconnected inode 132, would move to lost+found >> disconnected inode 133, would move to lost+found >> Phase 7 - verify link counts... >> No modify flag set, skipping filesystem flush and exiting. >> --- >> Given how trivial test xfs/261 is, it seems like created private mtab files >> that also get unlinked don't get added to AGI unlinked list before umount. >> I didn't have a detailed look whether that's possible or not and probably >> won't get to it before Christmas. So I'm sending this just in case someone >> more knowledgeable has ideas earlier... > > I don't see that here. If you mount/unmount the filesystem, does the > warning go away? i.e. xfs_repair -n ignores the contents of > the log, so if the unlinked list transactions are in the log then > log recovery will make everything good again. > > That said, if unmount is not leaving the log clean, then we've still > got an issue we need to get to the bottom of. > > Cheers, > > Dave. I've seen this but seemingly only on v4-superblock XFS and only with Dave's xfsprogs RFC libxfs patches applied. [Nice patchset, BTW.] Will `git pull` everything again, then take it home to the x86 dungeon and test it again. Good luck! Michael _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
