Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Steven Cole <> | | Subject | Re: 1352 NUL bytes at the end of a page? (was Re: Assertion `s && s->tree' failed: The saga continues.) | | Date | Wed, 19 May 2004 04:53:31 -0600 |
| |
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 08:38 am, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 17 May 2004, Steven Cole wrote: > > > > No problems, and with PREEMPT of course. > > Ok. Good. It's a small data-set, but the bug made sense, and so did the > fix.
Perhaps a final note on this: I did more testing on reiserfs overnight with Chris' patch, and it survived eleven pulls and unpulls with no failures.
> > > > If you see a failure on ext3, please try to analyze the corruption pattern > > > again. It might be something different. > > > > So, I take it that I should revert that one-liner if I want to get any failure data? > > With it, ext3 was pretty solid for this testing. > > Yes. That one-liner is bogus. It was a good way to test a hypothesis for > the common case of a filesystem that uses the block_write_full_page thing > (and reiser is one of the few that doesn't), but it wasn't the real fix. > The reiser patch was the real fix for the problem on reiser, but ext3 > should have been ok already. It uses (through a lot of other functions) > generic_file_aio_write_nolock() as the real write engine, and that one > calls "commit_write()" with the page lock held. > > Linus
I also tested ext3 more extensively (10 pulls/unpulls) and could not repeat the alleged failure on ext3. That was with akpm's one-liner backed out.
Steven - 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/
|  |