Re: [PATCH 1/3] ufs: ufs_trunc_indirect: infinite cycle

Evgeniy Dushistov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The situation the same: in ufs_trunc_(not direct),
>  we read block,
>  check if count of links to it is equal to one, 
>  if so we finish cycle, if not continue.
>  Because of "count of links" always >=2 this operation cause 
>  infinite cycle and hang up the kernel.

okay, but do we know what that code which you removed was actually intended
to do?

Do you know whether 2.4 kernels exhibit the same bug?  If not, we might have
accidentally broken UFS at some stage.
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/3] ufs: ufs_trunc_indirect: infinite cycle
    • From: Evgeniy Dushistov <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 1/3] ufs: ufs_trunc_indirect: infinite cycle
    • From: Evgeniy Dushistov <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH -rt 1/2] arm: add irqflags.h
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc4 1/6] Base support for kmemleak
• Previous by thread: [PATCH 1/3] ufs: ufs_trunc_indirect: infinite cycle
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ufs: ufs_trunc_indirect: infinite cycle
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]