On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:58:03 +0200, Reinoud Zandijk <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:02:47PM +0200, Andrea Gelmini wrote: > > 2009/7/23 Ryusuke Konishi <[email protected]>: > > > It also suggests that an inconsistent state in page cache of B-tree > > > nodes hit the function; the function found a dirty page, but the page > > > didn't have buffer heads which was supposed to be impossible for the > > > b-tree of nilfs. > > -> mkfs.nilfs2 -b 1024 /dev/mapper/VG-NilfHome (maybe the problem > > is the 1K block size?) > > 1024 is lower than the page size so that might explain a lot!
Yes, I suspect this in fact. The small size block changes several code paths. > I think its a missing check in the mkfs.nilfs2 to never allow lower > values than the page size for block size.... but Ryusuke can better > answer that :-D > > With regards, > Reinoud We have implemented nilfs to allow smaller block sizes in order to support some devices such like DVD/CD-ROM or flash based ones. So, I count it a bug which we should fix. Thanks, Ryusuke Konishi _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] https://www.nilfs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
