lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch/2.4] ll_rw_blk stomping on bh state [Re: kernel BUG at journal.c:1732! (2.4.19)]
    Hi,

    On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:53:45PM +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:

    > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:57:05AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > "Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
    > > >
    > > > if (maxsector < count || maxsector - count < sector) {
    > > > /* Yecch */
    > > > bh->b_state &= (1 << BH_Lock) | (1 << BH_Mapped);
    > > > ...
    > > > Folks, just which buffer flags do we want to preserve in this case?
    >
    > > Why do we want to clear any flags in there at all? To prevent
    > > a storm of error messages from a buffer which has a silly block
    > > number?
    >
    > That's the only reason I can think of. Simply scrubbing all the state
    > bits is totally the wrong way of going about that, of course.

    So what's the vote on this? It's a decision between clearing only the
    obvious bit (BH_Dirty) on the one hand, and keeping the code as
    unchanged as possible to reduce the possibility of introducing new
    bugs.

    But frankly I can't see any convincing argument for clearing anything
    except the dirty state in this case.

    --Stephen
    -
    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 13:31    [W:0.019 / U:90.260 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site