![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 10:33 +0800, Jamie Clark wrote: > After a quick browse of the assembler output the zeroing would appear to > be part of the list_del inline, and edi seems to equate to &sb. Seems reasonable. It does look like something's stomped on sb->s_dirty. > __mark_inode_dirty() does not appear to take sb_lock before adding to > the s_dirty list. Could that be the culprit? I don't think so; it's holding the inode_lock which should be sufficient. Besides -- in practice all updates to the 4-byte pointer sb->s_dirty.next are going to be atomic, and there's no reason _ever_ for it to be set to d7ffbc08. It's hard to see how a simple locking problem is going to cause such a thing. How repeatable is this? Can you turn on slab poisoning? -- dwmw2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||