[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [regression] Crash in wb_clear_pending()
On 2010-07-06 08:47, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Bill Davidsen <> 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.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-06 08:53    [W:0.080 / U:5.780 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site