[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] hunt for 2.6.37 dm-crypt+ext4 corruption?
- From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com>
- To: Andi Kleen <andi firstfloor org>
- Cc: Jon Nelson <jnelson jamponi net>, htejun gmail com, Theodore Tso <tytso MIT EDU>, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs vger kernel org>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel vger kernel org>, device-mapper development <dm-devel redhat com>, Matt <jackdachef gmail com>, htd <htd fancy-poultry org>, Heinz Diehl <htd fritha org>, linux-ext4 vger kernel org, Chris Mason <chris mason oracle com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] hunt for 2.6.37 dm-crypt+ext4 corruption?
- Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:15:02 -0500
On Sun, Dec 05 2010 at 3:28pm -0500,
Andi Kleen <andi firstfloor org> wrote:
> > As another thought, what version of GCC are people using who are having difficulty? Could this perhaps be a compiler-related issue?
>
> A compiler problem seems very unlikely here.
>
> What may be an useful experiment would be to test 2.6.37-rc + ext4 over
> device mapper, but not dmcrypt. If that fails too then it's likely
> some generic device mapper problem.
That would only prove its not dm-crypt; it would not absolve a non-DM
2.6.37-rc change at all.
Leveraging the fact that 2.6.36 + parallel dm-crypt is reportedly very
solid: maybe these would be more interesting (each would keep the latest
parallel dm-crypt patch overlayed for all tests):
1) Test 2.6.37-rc prior to all flush+fua changes (only changes DM saw
for 2.6.37-rc so far).
2) Back out all ext4 changes that were merged for 2.6.37-rc
- though Heinz is using XFS exclussively and still reported
corruption
3) A full git bisect of good=v2.6.36 bad=v2.6.37-rc4 would be the most
interesting. Albeit much more tedious.
Mike
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]