On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > running just over two hours with that commit reverted with no obvious ill effects so far. > > And how quickly have you usually seen the problems? Would you have > considered two ours "good" in your bisection thing? > > Also, just to check: Hugh sent out a patch called "mm: fix warning in > __set_page_dirty_nobuffers". Is that applied in your tree too, or did > the __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() warning go away with just the revert? That patch is good for fixing the __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() warning, but it has no relevance to the list corruption Dave was also reporting, nor vice versa. The common factor there is just Dave. And no disaster that the warning fix missed -rc1: it's only a WARN_ON_ONCE, and nothing was wrong beyond the warning itself, just noise. It's true that Dave's original bisection raised the doubt whether that warning is coming from somewhere else too; but best guess at this point is that something got mixed up, and we should only worry about that if we see the warning again once the known fix is in. Hugh > > I'm just trying to figure out exactly what you are testing. When you > said "test with that (and Hugh's last patch) backed out", the "and > Hugh's last patch" part was a bit ambiguous. Do you mean the trial > patch in this thread (backed out) or do you mean "*with* Hugh's patch > for the __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() warning". -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>