On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 10:53 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> diff ./fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c~current~ ./fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c
> --- ./fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c~current~ 2006-03-09 17:29:35.000000000
> +1100
> +++ ./fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c 2006-03-13 10:46:55.000000000 +1100
> @@ -578,14 +578,13 @@ static int metapage_releasepage(struct p
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int metapage_invalidatepage(struct page *page, unsigned long
> offset)
> +static void metapage_invalidatepage(struct page *page, unsigned long
> offset)
> {
> BUG_ON(offset);
>
> - if (PageWriteback(page))
> - return 0;
> + BUG_ON(PageWriteback(page));
I'm a little concerned about adding a BUG_ON for something this function
used to allow, but it looks like the BUG_ON is valid. I'm asking myself
why did I add the test for PageWriteback in the first place.
>
> - return metapage_releasepage(page, 0);
> + metapage_releasepage(page, 0);
> }
>
> struct address_space_operations jfs_metapage_aops = {
I'll try to stress test jfs with these patches to see if I can trigger
the an oops here.
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
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]
