Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1002908
[xfs/xfstests xfs/295] xfs_logprint: unknown log operation type (494e)
Last modified: 2013-11-21 16:20:39 EST
Created attachment 792085 [details] 295.full Description of problem: xfstests xfs/295 fails --- /var/lib/xfstests/tests/xfs/295.out 2013-08-20 11:47:57.000000000 +0800 +++ /var/lib/xfstests/results/xfs/295.out.bad 2013-08-30 16:12:20.792344199 +0800 @@ -1 +1,3 @@ QA output created by 295 +xfs_logprint: unknown log operation type (494e) +Bad data in log Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): xfsprogs-3.1.1-13.el6 kernel-2.6.32-414.el6 How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. check xfs/295 on xfs 2. 3. Actual results: test fails Expected results: test passes Additional info:
On one host I see different failures, maybe this is a different bug? --- /var/lib/xfstests/tests/xfs/295.out 2013-08-22 16:14:25.000000000 +0800 +++ /var/lib/xfstests/results/xfs/295.out.bad 2013-08-30 16:40:57.748723431 +0800 @@ -1 +1,3 @@ QA output created by 295 +Not enough headers for data length. +Not enough headers for data length. 295.full xfs_logprint: data device: 0xfd03 log device: 0xfd03 daddr: 10486272 length: 20480 cycle: 1 version: 2 lsn: 1,0 tail_lsn: 1,0 length of Log Record: 261632 prev offset: -1 num ops: 1 uuid: 87d55ccc-a7e6-44f0-b756-50700409f976 format: little endian linux h_size: 32768 ********************************************************************** * ERROR: for header block=0 * not enough hdrs for data length, required num = 8, hdr num = 1 ********************************************************************** xfs_logprint: data device: 0xfd03 log device: 0xfd03 daddr: 10486272 length: 20480 cycle: 1 version: 2 lsn: 1,0 tail_lsn: 1,0 length of Log Record: 261632 prev offset: -1 num ops: 1 uuid: b424c417-3b3b-4a9d-aa9b-b93e2bf79f5d format: little endian linux h_size: 32768 ********************************************************************** * ERROR: for header block=0 * not enough hdrs for data length, required num = 8, hdr num = 1 **********************************************************************
hohum, that test was written to TEST the change I made in this version of xfsprogs :( I'll look & see how this got messed up. On the other host, does older xfsprogs work better?
Ok, in the first case I'm missing patch 2/2. I'm sorry I didn't catch this by testing. :(
fixed in xfsprogs-3.1.1-14
(In reply to Eric Sandeen from comment #2) > hohum, that test was written to TEST the change I made in this version of > xfsprogs :( > > I'll look & see how this got messed up. > > On the other host, does older xfsprogs work better? For the "Not enough headers for data length." issue, I retested with xfsprogs-3.1.1-10.el6 (shipped with RHEL6.4) and the result was the same. [root@hp-dl388g8-03 xfstests]# cat /var/lib/xfstests/results/xfs/295.out.bad QA output created by 295 Not enough headers for data length. Not enough headers for data length. [root@hp-dl388g8-03 xfstests]# cat /var/lib/xfstests/results/xfs/295.full xfs_logprint: data device: 0xfd03 log device: 0xfd03 daddr: 10486272 length: 20480 cycle: 1 version: 2 lsn: 1,0 tail_lsn: 1,0 length of Log Record: 261632 prev offset: -1 num ops: 1 uuid: 1fc529f4-734c-4b35-8701-fca7485c3a65 format: little endian linux h_size: 32768 ********************************************************************** * ERROR: for header block=0 * not enough hdrs for data length, required num = 8, hdr num = 1 ********************************************************************** xfs_logprint: data device: 0xfd03 log device: 0xfd03 daddr: 10486272 length: 20480 cycle: 1 version: 2 lsn: 1,0 tail_lsn: 1,0 length of Log Record: 261632 prev offset: -1 num ops: 1 uuid: 0ecfbdde-8dac-48a2-b58a-60b8e393840f format: little endian linux h_size: 32768 ********************************************************************** * ERROR: for header block=0 * not enough hdrs for data length, required num = 8, hdr num = 1 **********************************************************************
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2013-1657.html