[lkml]   [2001]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 07:06:53PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > I can reproduce so it will be fixed in the next release. thanks for the

    Ok, it was because I developed the blkdev-pagecache and
    00_drop_async-io-get_bh-1 patches in two separated trees.

    When both patches passed all the regression testing I merged both
    into 2.4.7pre6aa1 but unfortunately no reject reminded me I had to drop
    the get_bh from the async handler used by the blkdev pagecache (sorry!).

    So in short this incremental patch on top of 2.4.7pre6aa1 will fix your
    problem (at least it did for mine):

    --- 2.4.7pre6aa1/fs/block_dev.c.~1~ Mon Jul 16 19:16:44 2001
    +++ 2.4.7pre6aa1/fs/block_dev.c Mon Jul 16 20:15:51 2001
    @@ -105,7 +105,6 @@
    do {
    - atomic_inc(&bh->b_count);
    set_bit(BH_Uptodate, &bh->b_state);
    clear_bit(BH_Dirty, &bh->b_state);
    bh = bh->b_this_page;
    @@ -189,7 +188,6 @@
    struct buffer_head * bh = arr[i];
    - atomic_inc(&bh->b_count);

    /* Stage 3: start the IO */

    I guess I will keep the above patch separated from the blkdev patch to
    ensure I won't forget about it (and also because if for whatever reason
    somebody can see any reason for which dropping the
    00_drop_async-io-get_bh-1 patch could be a good thing in the long run, I
    won't need to rediff the blkdev patch)

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:57    [W:0.022 / U:191.608 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site