On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 10:23:38PM +0100, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote: > In ufs_change_blocknr() we have called page_buffers() without checking if the > page actually had pages attached to it and this could cause a BUG oops. > This looks wrong for me. May be I missed something? Put little more context here. In ufs the tail of small files consists of fragments (usually 2K), the rest of file consists of blocks (usually 16K=8 fragments). When file is growing, and tail become too big (8 fragments) we allocate one block and move content of 8 fragments to it. So in our case we reach (during realocation) point when !page_has_buffers(page) (how?) and in your patch you suggest just ignore such buffer (in terms of ufs - fragments), in other words silently corrupt user data. May be there is better variant? -- /Evgeniy -- 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
