On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Probably false positive? Although when I look at the comment above xfs_sync_sb() > I think that may be sometging like below makes sense, but I know absolutely nothing > about fs/ and XFS in particular. > > Oleg. > > > --- x/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c > +++ x/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c > @@ -245,7 +245,8 @@ xfs_trans_alloc( > atomic_inc(&mp->m_active_trans); > > tp = kmem_zone_zalloc(xfs_trans_zone, > - (flags & XFS_TRANS_NOFS) ? KM_NOFS : KM_SLEEP); > + (flags & (XFS_TRANS_NOFS | XFS_TRANS_NO_WRITECOUNT)) > + ? KM_NOFS : KM_SLEEP); > tp->t_magic = XFS_TRANS_HEADER_MAGIC; > tp->t_flags = flags; > tp->t_mountp = mp; Brief examination says caller should set XFS_TRANS_NOFS, not change the implementation to make XFS_TRANS_NO_WRITECOUNT flag to also mean XFS_TRANS_NOFS. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
