Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:50:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:50:24 -0500 Received: from packet.digeo.com ([12.110.80.53]:28299 "EHLO packet.digeo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:50:23 -0500 Message-ID: <3DD140F1.F4AED387@digeo.com> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:57:05 -0800 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.5.46 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" CC: Mark Hazell , adilger@clusterfs.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch/2.4] ll_rw_blk stomping on bh state [Re: kernel BUG at journal.c:1732! (2.4.19)] References: <20021028111357.78197071.nutts@penguinmail.com> <20021112150711.F2837@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Nov 2002 17:57:06.0413 (UTC) FILETIME=[E9DBC9D0:01C28A74] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 799 Lines: 22 "Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote: > > if (maxsector < count || maxsector - count < sector) { > /* Yecch */ > bh->b_state &= (1 << BH_Lock) | (1 << BH_Mapped); > > ... > > Folks, just which buffer flags do we want to preserve in this case? > Why do we want to clear any flags in there at all? To prevent a storm of error messages from a buffer which has a silly block number? If so, how about setting a new state bit which causes subsequent IO attempts to silently drop the IO on the floor? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/