Bug 228956

Summary: F7 test1 stack traceback when mounting an xfs filesystem
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: David Keaton <dmk>
Component: kernelAssignee: Phil Knirsch <pknirsch>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: rvokal
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-04-20 03:11:17 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Description Flags
Stack traceback extracted from /var/log/messages. none

Description David Keaton 2007-02-16 05:32:37 UTC
Description of problem:
F7 test1 reports possible recursive locking and gives a stack traceback when
trying to mount an xfs filesystem.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
2.6.20-1.2930.fc7 i686 32-bit

How reproducible:
Mount an xfs filesystem.

Steps to Reproduce:
1.  Create an xfs filesystem or find an existing one.
2.  Mount it.
3.  Observe /var/log/messages.
Actual results:
Complaint about possible recursive locking being detected, along with a stack
traceback.  Some filesystem operations appear to work afterwards, but I haven't
trusted it enough to give it an extensive workout.  (My xfs filesystems have
live data that I don't want to lose.)

Expected results:
Normal mount and everything works with no complaints.

Additional info:
Stack traceback attached.

Comment 1 David Keaton 2007-02-16 05:32:37 UTC
Created attachment 148171 [details]
Stack traceback extracted from /var/log/messages.

Comment 2 David Keaton 2007-04-06 19:30:48 UTC
This is confirmed still a problem in F7 test3 updated to 2.6.20-1.3045.fc7.

It appears that the traceback does not occur until the first access to the
filesystem.  I can mount an xfs filesystem, and if it is not accessed, there is
no traceback.

Comment 3 Eric Sandeen 2007-04-20 03:11:17 UTC
This is really just a lockdep annotation problem, shouldn't affect functionality.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 229520 ***