Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753972Ab0GFG45 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jul 2010 02:56:57 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:56536 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753181Ab0GFG44 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jul 2010 02:56:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:56:36 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jens Axboe Cc: Linus Torvalds , Bill Davidsen , Christoph Hellwig , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Gleixner , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [regression] Crash in wb_clear_pending() Message-ID: <20100706065636.GB16224@elte.hu> References: <20100705085550.GA26775@elte.hu> <20100705164022.GA26995@infradead.org> <20100705171125.GB26202@elte.hu> <20100705171420.GA29697@elte.hu> <20100705182003.GA12332@infradead.org> <4C323177.3070606@kernel.dk> <4C324C78.5090805@tmr.com> <20100706064733.GA12382@elte.hu> <4C32D243.1050806@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C32D243.1050806@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.1 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.1 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.1 BAYES_05 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 1 to 5% [score: 0.0454] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1494 Lines: 38 * Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2010-07-06 08:47, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote: > >>> > >>> Absent a small fix, and given that the big fix has a lot more testing than > >>> any new patch might, in this case the quickie might be undesirable. > >>> Particularly since posters here seem sure that code will be replaced in the > >>> next version anyway, and lightly tested patch to obsolete code is actually > >>> less conservative. > >> > >> I have to agree. Especially as the "big patch" just removes the fragile code > >> that caused the problem in the first place. So in this case I do suspect > >> that the bigger patch ends up being the safer one. > > > > Yeah, i agree - especially since the smaller patch is still pretty large (not > > a oneliner), plus it does not appear that the precise failure mode is fully > > understood either. > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/5/232 > > It's about as straight forward as it can be :-) Yeah, i meant Christoph's first patch. Yours looks simple enough but from the discussion it wasnt clear (to me) yet whether it would fix the bug. Thanks, Ingo -- 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/