On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 07:16:33PM +0800, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:13:03 +0800 > Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > They also don't eliminate the problematic check above. Regardless of > > > whether your or Jens' patches make it in, I think we'll still need > > > something like the following (untested) patch. > > > > > > If this looks ok, I'll flesh out the comments some and "officially" post > > > it. Thoughts? > > > > It's good in itself. However with more_io_wait queue, the first two > > chunks will be eliminated. Mind I carry this patch with my patchset? > > > > It makes sense to roll that fix in with the stuff you're doing. > > If it's going to be a little while before your patches get taken into > mainline though, it might not hurt to go ahead and push my patch in as > an interim fix. It shouldn't change the behavior of the code in the > normal case of a short-lived dirtied_when value, and should guard > against major problems when there's a long-lived one. I'm afraid my patchset will miss the 2.6.30 merge window, so it makes sense to merge your patch first: > From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [PATCH] writeback: guard against jiffies wraparound on inode->dirtied_when checks Acked-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
