On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:51:48PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:07:36PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > >> On Fri 08-06-12 10:36:13, Ted Tso wrote: > >> > > >> > I can reproduce this fairly easily by using ext4 w/o a journal, running > >> > under KVM with 1024megs memory, with fsstress (xfstests #13): > > > > Good catch, thanks! > > > >> Argh, I wonder how come I didn't hit this. Does attached patch fix the > >> problem? > > > >> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c > >> index 8d2fb8c..41a3ccf 100644 > >> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c > >> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c > >> @@ -664,6 +664,7 @@ static long writeback_sb_inodes(struct super_block *sb, > >> /* Wait for I_SYNC. This function drops i_lock... */ > >> inode_sleep_on_writeback(inode); > >> /* Inode may be gone, start again */ > >> + spin_lock(&wb->list_lock); > >> continue; > >> } > > > > That looks like the fix. So I pushed it to writeback-for-next. > > Thanks for the quick fixing! > > > > s/writeback-for-next/writeback-for-linus ? I use the same branch for next and linus.. Before sending git pull requests, I add a tag somewhere in the branch and ask Linus to pull that tag :) Thanks, Fengguang -- 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
