Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 21:05:13 -0500 From: Chris Ross <cross+freebsd@distal.com> To: Kurt Lidl <lidl@pix.net> Cc: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org, Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> Subject: Re: Changes to kern.geom.debugflags? Message-ID: <56B28B8A-2284-421D-A666-A21F995C7640@distal.com> In-Reply-To: <20121230032403.GA29164@pix.net> References: <7AA0B5D0-D49C-4D5A-8FA0-AA57C091C040@distal.com> <6A0C1005-F328-4C4C-BB83-CA463BD85127@distal.com> <20121225232507.GA47735@alchemy.franken.de> <8D01A854-97D9-4F1F-906A-7AB59BF8850B@distal.com> <A947C892-5379-4F70-BFA0-0A7AB94DF0C6@distal.com> <6FC4189B-85FA-466F-AA00-C660E9C16367@distal.com> <20121230032403.GA29164@pix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 29, 2012, at 10:24 PM, Kurt Lidl <lidl@pix.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 03:01:55PM -0500, Chris Ross wrote:
>> I'm going to guess this is a problem with dnode->dn_datablkszsec.
>> Has anything changed recently in zfs_fmtdev, or more likely =
zfs_get_root()
>> or objset_get_dnode(), which is the callchain right before =
dnode_read() ?
>=20
> Well, there has been a big set of bugfixes integrated into zfs since
> the 9.1-RELEASE, particularly revision r243674:
>=20
> =
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r243674 | mm | 2012-11-29 09:05:04 -0500 (Thu, 29 Nov 2012) | 223 =
lines
>=20
> Merge ZFS feature flags support and related bugfixes:
> 236884, 237001, 237119, 237458, 237972, 238113, 238391, 238422, =
238926,
> 238950, 238951, 239389, 239394, 239620, 239774, 239953, 239958, =
239967,
> 239968, 240063, 240133, 240153, 240303, 240345, 240415, 240955, =
241655,
> 243014, 243505, 243506
>=20
> [ long, long description elided ]
> =
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=20
> However, I think it's more likely that this revision, particularly
> r239068 that is the probably cause of the issue you are seeing.
> I don't particularly care for giant patches like this, where
> trying to figure out exactly what piece of what patch did what,
> but that's the way it goes.
>=20
> So, to answer your question, "Yes, lots of stuff has changed recently
> with ZFS".
Okay. Well, I tried building stable/9 at revision 243673, which =
didn't work, and
then 243242, which also failed in the same way. So, it may be something =
earlier
than the suggested (if I'm reading your email correctly, and 243243 is =
where the
rev you mentioned was integrated to stable/9.)
Thanks much for the pointers! I'll try to take a look at some of the =
underlying
changes, and see if anything looks more relevant.
- Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56B28B8A-2284-421D-A666-A21F995C7640>