On Fri, 12 May 2006, Erik Mouw wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 06:53:27AM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: > > > > I was pointing on 2.6.17 kmem_cache related issues while back to LKML > > and it turns out that you can reproduce them easily with standalone > > trivial module, see > > http://openib.org/pipermail/openib-general/2006-April/020582.html > > > > So far no one picked the issue anb i was adviced to use bisection... > > I tracked it down with git bisect. The culprit is this commit: > > 56cf6504fc1c0c221b82cebc16a444b684140fb7 is first bad commit Ok, that's just _strange_. Clearly bisection picked the right commit, since: > After reverting this commit in 2.6.17-rc4 I can't trigger the bug > anymore. but at the same time, I don't see what that two-liner patch to block/genhd.c has to do with that trivial module which doesn't even _use_ any of the functions that the patch affects. It sounds like you used some other test-case than the trivial module above to test bisection? So when you say "I tracked _it_ down with git bisect" (my emphasis), it sounds like "it" was really something else than the trivial stand-alone module. Or are you saying that the trivial stand-alone module _also_ got fixed? > Might be worth fixing before 2.6.17-final. Yes. We could just revert that commit, but it seems correct, and I'd really like for somebody to understand _why_ that commit matters at all. I certainly don't see the overlap here.. So I get the feeling that you bisected just the case below, right? > Note: I'm going on holiday next week, so I'm not able to test any > fixes. However, because this bug is very easy to trigger[1], anybody > with root on NFS and fully modular SCSI or libata should be able to > test. > > [1] See http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=114736053211943&w=2 Hmm. Jens? Any ideas? Linus - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
