----- Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------
    Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:16:45 +0100
    From: Janek Kozicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Janek Kozicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Subject: Re: raid5 reshape/resync
      To: Nagilum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
      Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org


Nagilum said:     (by the date of Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:56:13 +0100)

Ok, I've recreated the problem in form of a semiautomatic testcase.
All necessary files (plus the old xfs_repair output) are at:
  http://www.nagilum.de/md/

After running the test.sh the created xfs filesystem on the raid
device is broken and (at last in my case) cannot be mounted anymore.

I think that you should file a bugreport, and provide there the
explanations you have put in there. An automated test case that leads
to xfs corruption is a neat snack for bug squashers ;-)

I wonder however where to report this - the xfs or raid ? Eventually
cross report to both places and write in the bugreport that you are
not sure on which side there is a bug.

----- End message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----

This is a md/mdadm problem. xfs is merely used as a vehicle to show the problem also amplified bei luks.
Where would I file this bug report? I thought this is the place?
I could also really use a way to fix that corruption. :(
Thanks,
Alex.

PS: yesterday I verified this bug on 2.6.23.9, will do 2.6.23.11 today.

========================================================================
#    _  __          _ __     http://www.nagilum.org/ \n icq://69646724 #
#   / |/ /__ ____ _(_) /_ ____ _  [EMAIL PROTECTED] \n +491776461165 #
#  /    / _ `/ _ `/ / / // /  ' \  Amiga (68k/PPC): AOS/NetBSD/Linux   #
# /_/|_/\_,_/\_, /_/_/\_,_/_/_/_/   Mac (PPC): MacOS-X / NetBSD /Linux #
#           /___/     x86: FreeBSD/Linux/Solaris/Win2k  ARM9: EPOC EV6 #
========================================================================


----------------------------------------------------------------
cakebox.homeunix.net - all the machine one needs..

Attachment: pgpu1mUvwteaE.pgp
Description: PGP Digital Signature

Reply via email to