Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:50:43 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [regression] Crash in wb_clear_pending() |
| |
On 2010-07-06 08:47, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/5/232
It's about as straight forward as it can be :-) It definitely fixes _a_ bug, but whether it's only that bug is not certain. As long as Linus is fine with the larger fix, then I have no issues going in that direction.
>> 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
Great, I'll upstream these bits today. Thanks Ingo.
-- Jens Axboe
| |