On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 01:17:13PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > I've not seen the inode eviction asserts anymore, but I now hit a > > corruption warnings in generic/168 reliably. I did hit before as > > well, but not very reliably. > > I'll see if I can repro the 168 error; it's been running in a loop all > night and hasn't bombed yet. Note that this is over nfs to a local server, not running on xfs directly, which is doing fine. > In the meantime, I added some more tests and fixed a CoW corruption when an > xfs_io_overwrite extent has cow reservations in the middle of the extent. > > I also restarted testing on arm64, ppc64{,el}, and i686; it seems > stable enough right now to pass all ~130 reflink xfstests here. I see pretty reliable failures in xfs/128 xfs/132 xfs/139, apparenly due to content mismatches. Re the verifier failure: sees like we're hitting the if (level >= pag->pagf_refcount_level) return false; case. Together with the other garbage in it seems like we're seeing a btree block that's not properly initialized in some way, maybe after a split. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs