lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [regression] Crash in wb_clear_pending()

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote:
> >
> > Absent a small fix, and given that the big fix has a lot more testing than
> > any new patch might, in this case the quickie might be undesirable.
> > Particularly since posters here seem sure that code will be replaced in the
> > next version anyway, and lightly tested patch to obsolete code is actually
> > less conservative.
>
> I have to agree. Especially as the "big patch" just removes the fragile code
> that caused the problem in the first place. So in this case I do suspect
> that the bigger patch ends up being the safer one.

Yeah, i agree - especially since the smaller patch is still pretty large (not
a oneliner), plus it does not appear that the precise failure mode is fully
understood either.

> But I obviously don't actually see the problem, so it would be good to get
> confirmation that Christoph's patch actually fixes things first. Ingo, does
> the one in this thread apply for you?

Yes, the three larger patches survived overnight testing with 300+ iterations
and i did some other tests as well, which passed too. These are the patches i
applied:

a73dd720 writeback: remove writeback_inodes_wbc
9f98c0fa writeback: split writeback_inodes_wb
79338d2a writeback: simplify the write back thread queue

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-06 08:51    [W:0.079 / U:13.468 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site