From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753229Ab1AVOKe (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Jan 2011 09:10:34 -0500 Received: from sh.osrg.net ([192.16.179.4]:49338 "EHLO sh.osrg.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753083Ab1AVOKc (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Jan 2011 09:10:32 -0500 Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:09:56 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20110122.230956.176521815.ryusuke@osrg.net> To: wakko@animx.eu.org Cc: linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NILFS crash on 2.6.37 From: Ryusuke Konishi In-Reply-To: <20110122015748.GA3174@animx.eu.org> References: <20110121.163738.135792151.ryusuke@osrg.net> <20110121.181859.144825828.ryusuke@osrg.net> <20110122015748.GA3174@animx.eu.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 22.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (sh.osrg.net [192.16.179.4]); Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:09:58 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:57:48 -0500, Wakko Warner wrote: > Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:37:38 +0900 (JST), Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > > > (Cc'ed to linux-nilfs) > > Does the following patch fix your problem? > > > diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/super.c b/fs/nilfs2/super.c > > index 0994f6a7..58fd707 100644 > > --- a/fs/nilfs2/super.c > > +++ b/fs/nilfs2/super.c > > @@ -704,7 +704,8 @@ skip_mount_setup: > > sbp[0]->s_state = > > cpu_to_le16(le16_to_cpu(sbp[0]->s_state) & ~NILFS_VALID_FS); > > /* synchronize sbp[1] with sbp[0] */ > > - memcpy(sbp[1], sbp[0], nilfs->ns_sbsize); > > + if (sbp[1]) > > + memcpy(sbp[1], sbp[0], nilfs->ns_sbsize); > > return nilfs_commit_super(sbi, NILFS_SB_COMMIT_ALL); > > } > > That patch fix it. Just a note, the 2.6.37 vanilla source was about 20 > lines up from 704 Thanks for testing. Will send upstream and to stable. > > > > [ 1202.581501] NILFS warning: broken superblock. using spare superblock. > > > > [ 1202.582093] NILFS warning: broken superblock. using spare superblock. > > Why does it say this 2 times? Just curious. Because each super block is read twice in different block sizes. Well, indeed it looks confusing. I'll try to do something. Ryusuke Konishi