lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [ 10/41] CIFS: Do not kmalloc under the flocks spinlock
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:11:35PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> 19 марта 2012 г. 19:50 пользователь Greg KH
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> написал:
> > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:52:24AM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> >> 17 марта 2012 г. 11:32 пользователь Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> написал:
> >> > On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 10:14 +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> >> >> 17 марта 2012 г. 6:37 пользователь Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> написал:
> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:38:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >> >> >> 3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >> > [...]
> >> >> > But we test this before flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX, which means we
> >> >> > don't know whether this lock actually needs to be assigned one of
> >> >> > those structures.  So it appears that we might report a spurious error
> >> >> > if the lock list ends with a mandatory lock.  If so, this is
> >> >> > relatively harmless but does need to be fixed.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You are right here, thanks for the catch! I will repost the patch asap.
> >> >
> >> > This has already been merged into Linus's tree, so you need to submit a
> >> > patch to apply on top of it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I posted two patches:
> >> 1) the whole fixed version for the stable tree [PATCH v2] CIFS: Do not
> >> kmalloc under the flocks spinlock
> >
> > What do you mean by "fixed version"?
> >
> >> 2) fixup for mainline [PATCH] CIFS: Fix a spurious error in
> >> cifs_push_posix_locks
> >
> > What do you mean by this?
>
> Ok, seems I didn't understand this process correctly. I reposted the
> new "fixed" version of this patch, because I thought it is more
> suitable for stale to merge one correct patch rather than one
> incorrect + follow-on fixup. Sorry if I was wrong.

I need to stay identical with Linus's tree as much as possible, it's
easier for everyone in the end that way for tracking exactly what
happens.

> > If there was a follow-on patch in Linus's tree that fixes a problem, I
> > need that git commit id, not a "fixed" patch that does not match up with
> > what is in Linus's tree right now.
> >
> > So, if that's the case, please let me know what the git commit id of
> > that patch is please.
>
> Steve has just merged the follow-on patch:
> http://git.samba.org/?p=sfrench/cifs-2.6.git;a=commit;h=ce85852b90a214cf577fc1b4f49d99fd7e98784a
>
> but seems hasn't sent a merge request to Linus yet - will let you know
> when the patch comes to Linus's tree.

Ok, please let me know when this goes into Linus's tree and I will
queue it up for the next releases.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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: 2012-03-19 20:27    [W:0.047 / U:20.964 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site