On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:14:32PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Otherwise ext4_error will cause BUG because of > scheduling in atomic context. > > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> When I tried adding this patch to the patch queue, I got the following rejected chunk: diff a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c (rejected hunks) @@ -3791,8 +3790,9 @@ ext4_mb_release_inode_pa(struct ext4_buddy *e4b, struct buffer_head *bitmap_bh, pa, (unsigned long) pa->pa_lstart, (unsigned long) pa->pa_pstart, (unsigned long) pa->pa_len); - ext4_error(sb, __func__, "free %u, pa_free %u\n", - free, pa->pa_free); + ext4_grp_locked_error(sb, group, + __func__, "free %u, pa_free %u\n", + free, pa->pa_free); /* * pa is already deleted so we use the value obtained * from the bitmap and continue. This looks like it came from the patch aneesh-8-fix-double-free-of-blocks which in a message sent roughly at the same time you told me to drop from the patch queue. So I'm adding this to the patch queue without this rejected hunk. One of the challenges right now with applying your patches is that you have a large number of patches in the unstable part of the tree, and when you send me new patches, it's not clear where they apply and since they are entagled with each other, I may get some of the wrong. If there are certain patches which we are sure are OK, such as the sparse fixes, I can move them into the stable part of the tree and assume they aren't going to change moving forward. But for patches which are unstable, I'm going to need some help from you to make sure they get applied in a sane and stable order.... - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
