On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 10:21:02PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> The short version is that no additional patches should be needed for
> mainline.
This one may be needed too. Perhaps it's unnecessary for the MS_ACTIVE
case (I would assume in that case by design nobody can find the inode
while MS_ACTIVE is not set), but the unhashed case sounds more
interesting. At the moment I'm unsure who is using the unhashed
last-iput feature to get rid of the inode but the below looks needed at
the light of that feature.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <[email protected]>
diff -r 2c7561cc445e fs/inode.c
--- a/fs/inode.c Mon Oct 24 00:24:54 2005 +0011
+++ b/fs/inode.c Tue Oct 25 16:06:25 2005 +0200
@@ -1088,6 +1088,7 @@
if (inode->i_data.nrpages)
truncate_inode_pages(&inode->i_data, 0);
clear_inode(inode);
+ wake_up_inode(inode);
destroy_inode(inode);
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
