Theodore Tso wrote: > On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:20:26AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >>> These buffer_heads are allocated on stack and are used only to >>> make get_blocks calls. So we can set the b_state to 0 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> I'd noticed this too, thanks for fixing up. > > Is this just a clean-up, or does this fix a bug? It wasn't obvious > the patch description. (I'm not a big fan of Ingo's 'Impact: ' > header, but it is good to make sure the patch description explains > the impact of a patch.) Aneesh responded, but AFAICT it doesn't actually fix a bug, but letting buffer heads float around with indeterminate state can't be good in the long run. > In the long run, we should really look at cleaning up the get_blocks* > interfaces so they don't use buffer_head when all they're really > doing is passing back a block number. All aside from the confusion > it causes, it also bloats our stack usage. Overall, the kernel in general could use something in place of these buffer-heads-that-aren't-buffer-heads, imho. Pretty sure we use it for more than just a block nr, but it's not really a buffer head either, it's one of these "map_bh's" - we should probably at least try to consistently label them as such in ext* -Eric > - 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
