On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:24:20PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 11-03-09 04:29:18, Nick Piggin wrote: > > How about this? > Looks fine to me. Thanks for the good review. Andrew, do you think you can apply this on top of the previous patch? I'm undecided as to whether they should go together or not. Probably the first one is a minimal fix that doesn't alter behaviour as much, but things seem more robust after this 2nd patch. I think both would probably be suitable for 2.6.29, being a nasty bug, but it isn't a recent regression AFAIKS. > > > -- > > To be on the safe side, it should be less fragile to exclude I_NEW inodes > > from inode list scans by default (unless there is an important reason to > > have them). > > > > Normally they will get excluded (eg. by zero refcount or writecount etc), > > however it is a bit fragile for list walkers to know exactly what parts of > > the inode state is set up and valid to test when in I_NEW. So along these > > lines, move I_NEW checks upward as well (sometimes taking I_FREEING etc > > checks with them too -- this shouldn't be a problem should it?) > > > > Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
