On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 09:55:23AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote: > 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 for letting me know, I'll not include it in the 2.6.27-stable tree then. greg k-h -- 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
