[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? (was: Re: dm-crypt barrier support is effective)
- From: Chris Mason <chris mason oracle com>
- To: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk mikefedyk com>
- Cc: Jon Nelson <jnelson jamponi net>, htejun <htejun gmail com>, Matt <jackdachef gmail com>, Ted Ts'o <tytso mit edu>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel vger kernel org>, dm-devel <dm-devel redhat com>, Andi Kleen <andi firstfloor org>, htd <htd fancy-poultry org>, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4 vger kernel org>, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs vger kernel org>, Milan Broz <mbroz redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] hunt for 2.6.37 dm-crypt+ext4 corruption? (was: Re: dm-crypt barrier support is effective)
- Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 21:00:07 -0500
Excerpts from Mike Fedyk's message of 2010-12-09 20:58:40 -0500:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Chris Mason <chris mason oracle com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Andi Kleen's message of 2010-12-09 18:16:16 -0500:
> >> > 512MB.
> >> >
> >> > 'free' reports 75MB, 419MB free.
> >> >
> >> > I originally noticed the problem on really real hardware (thinkpad
> >> > T61p), however.
> >>
> >> If you can easily reproduce it could you try a git bisect?
> >
> > Do we have a known good kernel? I looked back through the thread and
> > didn't see any reports where the postgres test on ext4 passed in this
> > config.
> >
>
> 2.6.34.something. -- Any chance a newer kernel can be tested to be found good?
But he is triggering the ext4 corruption without dm-crypt. I think
dm-crypt was still used somewhere on the system during the test, just
not on the partitions that actually hit the corruption.
-chris
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]