Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:21:05 +0200 | From | Paolo Ornati <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.17-ck1: fcache problem... |
| |
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:43:59 +0200 Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote:
> > > Hmm, and you are sure that the fs is properly umounted on reboot? Or is > > > it just remounted ro? It looks like fcache_close_dev() isn't being > > > called, so the cache serial doesn't match what we expect from the fs, > > > hence fcache bails out since it could indicate that the fs has been > > > changed without fcache being attached. > > > > Ahh... it is the root fs and it's just remounted read-only by the > > standard Gentoo scripts ;) > > > > I don't think that unmounting it is trivial (you need to chroot to a > > virtual FS or something...). Does any distro do it? > > ro should be enough, something odd must be going on. I'll add it to the > list of things to test tomorrow.
Since "fcache_close_dev()" is called by "ext3_put_super()" I have added this stupid printk:
--- fs/ext3/super.c.orig 2006-06-27 10:47:15.000000000 +0200 +++ fs/ext3/super.c 2006-06-27 10:50:36.000000000 +0200 @@ -422,6 +422,8 @@ static void ext3_put_super (struct super
has_fcache = test_opt(sb, FCACHE);
+ printk("!!! ext3_put_super !!! has_fcache=%d\n", has_fcache); + ext3_xattr_put_super(sb); journal_destroy(sbi->s_journal); if (!(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
It triggers on unmount but it doesn't on remount "ro".
So the problem is that "fcache_close_dev()" have zero chances to run ;)
-- Paolo Ornati Linux 2.6.17-ck1 on x86_64 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |