Re: Bug in ext3

[Mike Fedyk]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 05:06:28PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 02:58:03PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2001  16:02 -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:48:26PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > ext3 thinks that the filesystem's superblock has the
> > > > EXT3_FEATURE_COMPAT_HAS_JOURNAL bit set in the s_feature_compat
> > > > field of the on-disk superblock.
> > > > 
> > > > It's probable that that bit _is_ set.  ext2 will never notice it.
> > > > 
> > > > Please: the dumpe2fs output?
> > > 
> > > Seems it does have the field set. I guess the bug is then that if there
> > > is no journal, then it shoudl fail to mount it, so ext2 will take over.
> > > Is there any reason to mount a partition as ext3 if there is no journal
> > > to be found?
> > 
> > It _does_ fail to mount the filesystem as ext3, and the ext2 code properly
> > mounts it.  You can see this because the error message you got (in your
> > previous posting said "EXT2-fs: ..." so the error came from ext2.
> > 
> > Please run e2fsck (1.25) to clear this up.  It may be that you have other
> > corruption in your filesystem.  If you are sure you _never_ tried ext3
> > on this filesystem before, yet the has_journal bit is set, this could
> > be an indication of memory or cable problems.
> 
> Uh, something corrupted it. Believe me, there is no other corruption.
> I've reverted to a non-ext3 kernel, and after a day of serious IO, no
> problems have shown. So something is wrong, and it isn't my filesystem
> (the erroneous flag needs to be cleared, yes, but the fact remains that
> there is a problem in this case).

Yes, true.

Can you try again with a journal in this FS with ext3?