Excerpts from David Sterba's message of 2011-09-30 06:52:00 -0400:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:06:50AM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
> > The problem might be solved by the following patch.
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=131556023601191&w=2
>
> Thanks! It's the same BUG_ON line. I rerun
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:06:50AM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
> The problem might be solved by the following patch.
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=131556023601191&w=2
Thanks! It's the same BUG_ON line. I rerun the test yesterday for the
scond time and it triggered again. Now I'm testing i
Hi, David,
(2011/09/30 7:05), David Sterba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> xfstests/013 triggered this bug (I've never seen it before, though the
> integration-test is basically the same what I was hammering with xfstests
> recently):
The problem might be solved by the following patch.
http://marc.info/?l=li
Hi,
xfstests/013 triggered this bug (I've never seen it before, though the
integration-test is basically the same what I was hammering with xfstests
recently):
[15572.066484] [ cut here ]
[15572.068548] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:835!
[15572.068548] invalid opcode: 000
