On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 08:29:42AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> By looking at the code, I don't see where the change in the reference counting
> could have caused this.
The cause was the bug I identified in patch 3, not this patch.
The regression is easily hit - tables that reference the same underlying device
more than once are very common.
Alasdair
From 1584935476019304551@xxx Fri Nov 24 08:30:56 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1581761436257495082
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread