On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 10:10 +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday March 13, [email protected] wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes.... as far as I can tell, ->invalidatepage is only called with
> the page locked, and with Writeback clear, so PageWriteback can never
> be true. So the BUG_ON should be a no-op.
Either I was being overly paranoid when I put in that test, or some code
previously called invalidatepage with Writeback set and it's since been
fixed.
> > I'll try to stress test jfs with these patches to see if I can trigger
> > the an oops here.
>
> Thanks. I'd be very interested if you do.
> I got on oops with a similar bug_on in the new nfs_invalidatepage and
> it turned out to be a bug in radixtree (which I had already found and
> fixed, but not in that source tree).
Aside from the jbd assert that Andrew fixed, my stress testing of jfs
was successful. I ACK the jfs-specific part of the patch.
--
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]
