Re: 2.6.17-ck1: fcache problem...

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:43:59 +0200
Jens Axboe <[email protected]> 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);
        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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux