Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:52:45 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF |
| |
[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:51:34PM -0500] | Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | >[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:17:53PM -0500] | >| Andrew Morton wrote: | >| | >| >Recursive lock_kernel() is OK. | >| | >| Oh, it is? Clearly I am not well versed in the BKL... that's probably a | >| good thing.... :) | >| | >| Ok, let me look into it further. I changed lock_kernel to | >| udf_lock_kernel to complain & backtrace if we re-lock, and it always | >| immediately hung after that; I assumed that was it. I'll investigate | >| further. | >| | >| -Eric | >| | > | >Btw, Andrew is there any way to force kernel to use special UDF module | >instead of compiled-in one? (Sorry for stupid question ;) | | Not if it's already built in (at least not with more hackery than it's | worth...) - just rebuild your kernel w/ udf as a module. | | BTW my testcase before was bogus, that's not what's causing the lockup. | I'll keep investigating now that I know what *not* to look for. ;-) | | -Eric |
Thanks for answer
Cyrill
- 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/
| |