在 2008-12-07日的 20:42 -0800，Andrew Morton写道： > (cc stable) > > On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 10:28:21 -0500 Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 08:22:33PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > I suggest that what we do is to revert both those changes. We can > > > worry about the possibly-unneeded spin_lock later, in a separate patch. > > > > > > It should have been a separate patch anyway. It's conceptually > > > unrelated and is not a bugfix, but it was mixed in with a bugfix. > > > > > > Mingming, this needs urgent consideration, please. Note that I had to > > > make additional changes to ext4 due to the subsequent introduction of > > > the dirty_blocks counter. > > > > I've looked the two patches which you've queued in the -mm branch, and > > they look correct to me. > > > > The bugs fixed by these patches can potentially lead to filesystem > > corruption, since we ultimately use these fields to set the superblock > > values. This in my mind makes them stable candidates at the very > > least, and if we weren't so late in the 2.6.28 cycle, I'd be strongly > > tempted to push them to Linus as a bugfix before the merge window. > > > > Andrew, any strong objections for me to grab them for the ext4 tree? > > Or would you rather carry them? I would prefer that they get pushed > > to Linus as soon as the merge window opens, which is one reason why > > I'd prefer carry them, but we can do this either way. > > > > I'm planning on sending them off to Linus for 2.6.28 this week, > assuming nobody can think of a plausible reason to not do that. > > Now I didn't look _very_ closely at the chronology, but I think that > revert-percpu-counter-clean-up-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch reverts > a post-2.6.27 change, and is not needed in stable. > > revert-percpu_counter-new-function-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch > however reverts a pre-2.6.27 change, and should be merged into 2.6.27. > This patch reverts the addition and use of > percpu_counter_sum_and_set(), which is racy and can corrupt the > counters. > > However > revert-percpu_counter-new-function-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch > won't apply to 2.6.27 because the dirty_blocks stuff was added and > generates rejects. > > So if all the above is correct, I'd propose that if and when > revert-percpu_counter-new-function-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch > hits mainline, we should ask the -stable guys to directly revert > Agreed. I checked 2.6.27.8, above are correct, the revert-percpu-counter-clean-up-percpu_counter_sum_and_set.patch is not needed for 2.6.27.x stable tree. Thanks again. Mingming > commit e8ced39d5e8911c662d4d69a342b9d053eaaac4e > Author: Mingming Cao <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri Jul 11 19:27:31 2008 -0400 > > percpu_counter: new function percpu_counter_sum_and_set > > which should be all that 2.6.27.x needs. > > Agree? If so, can you please take care of getting that patch over to > stable@xxxxxxxxxx? (I added the cc:stable to the diff, so there's > probably nothing which you need to do..) > -- > 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 -- 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
