On Wed 27-01-10 09:53:39, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 08:32:22AM -0700, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > @@ -2127,17 +2127,16 @@ static void ext4_da_block_invalidatepages(struct mpage_da_data *mpd,
> > break;
> > for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
> > struct page *page = pvec.pages[i];
> > - index = page->index;
> > - if (index > end)
> > + if (page->index > end)
> > break;
> > - index++;
> > -
> > BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
> > BUG_ON(PageWriteback(page));
> > block_invalidatepage(page, 0);
> > ClearPageUptodate(page);
> > unlock_page(page);
> > }
> > + index = pvec.pages[nr_pages - 1]->index + 1;
> > + pagevec_release(&pvec);
> > }
> > return;
> > }
>
> The patch includes a cleanup and a bug fix, both looks OK to me.
> But if we can split it, the bug fix would be good candidate for
> the stable kernel?
I don't think we want to push this to -stable kernel. As I wrote, this
code is called only in case user is going to loose written data which is a
bug on it's own so loosing a few page references is nothing compared to
that.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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
