Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:05:17 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch/2.4] ll_rw_blk stomping on bh state [Re: kernel BUG at journal.c:1732! (2.4.19)] |
| |
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote: > > 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. >
I'd agree with that. And the dirty bit will already be cleared, won't it?
Maybe just treat it as an IO error and leave it at that; surely that won't introduce any problems, given all the testing that has gone into the error handling paths :) - 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/
| |