![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi Grant, On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 11:09:15AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote: > >What puzzles me is how are we supposed to up(&nd.dentry->d_inode->i_sem) if > >dentry->d_inode can become NULL ? simply by keeping a copy of it ? I thought > >that the down() protected the whole thing, but may be that's stupid anyway. > >I've been running rc1 without this patch for a few hours and during kernel > >compiles without a problem, so I'm not sure about what to think about the > >other changes which were apparently harmless too :-/ > > So what's the final fixup? Last two patches don't seem to cause the > problems previously reported by me. They don't play together though, > so I'll add my general sense of confusion to this issue ;) :-) Marcelo's patch applies to sys_unlink(). It prevents sys_unlink() from oopsing while releasing the inode's semaphore after vfs_unlink() has nullified the inode pointer. Mine did nearly the same within vfs_unlink(), where you got your original oopses. > Should I run the thing (which patch?) and compile a hundred kernels > or something to see what (if anything) breaks. Shortest day of year > here, I don't mind running the test box as part of room heating :o) If you want to heat your room, you should effectively apply both patches, then run a hundred kernel compiles. Removing the "-pipe" option to gcc would help a lot since it will have to create temp files. > Thanks, > Grant. Thanks for your time, Willy - 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: 2006-06-21 06:13 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||