On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:19:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:57:48 +0100 > Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > How's about we do fs-new-inode-i_state-corruption-fix.patch in 2.6.29 > and fs-avoid-i_new-inodes.patch in 2.6.30? We could backport > fs-avoid-i_new-inodes.patch into 2.6.29.x if needed. Yes that's probably best. -- 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
