> On Mar 6, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Alex Lyakas <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello Dave, > >> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 11:18:43AM +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote: >>> Hello Dave, >>> Thanks for the patch! I confirm that it fixes the scenario. >>> >>> At [1] please find all the blknos that are being used during the log >>> recovery (if that's of any interest). >> .... >>> Mar 3 11:17:41 vc-00-00-350-dev kernel: [ 68.129739] >>> _xfs_buf_find: blkno=200705 eofs=204800 >m_sb.sb_dblocks=25600 >>> Mar 3 11:17:41 vc-00-00-350-dev kernel: [ 68.129746] >>> _xfs_buf_find: blkno=200705 eofs=204800 >m_sb.sb_dblocks=25600 >> >> Where is the warning that this block is out of range? > Perhaps you are being confused by the ">" mark that appears in the > prints? This was definitely added by mistake, it appears on every > print. I apologize for that. > If not, then my understanding is that 200705 is still less than > 204800, so this block number is not out of range. And since we have > added the new pag structure, the issue is now fixed. Block units in printks are never clear; 204800 sectors is 25600 4K blocks, and yes, the buffer at sector 200705 looks to be in range of the filesystem. Eric > Otherwise, I can provide an XFS metadump for you to analyze. > > Thanks, > Alex. > >> >> And why didn't recovery fail at this point because the block >> requested is out of range and so the buffer lookup should have >> failed? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dave. >> -- >> Dave Chinner >> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
