From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261316AbVFAHgf (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2005 03:36:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261317AbVFAHgf (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2005 03:36:35 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:32229 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261316AbVFAHge (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2005 03:36:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:36:32 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Alexander Nyberg Cc: sct@redhat.com, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Assertion failure in log_do_checkpoint() and the fix Message-ID: <20050601073632.GC5933@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <1117483858.956.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1117483858.956.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, > This was brought up earlier at http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/6/30 > > Is there any reason for this one-liner to not go into mainline? It > appears to fix up a quite nasty failure. Even if it is not the real > correct long term solution it has to be better than having boxes > panic'ing under certain loads? Actually I just wanted to write Andrew to include the two one-liners that fix the real bugs (the patches will follow soon). I have the bigger patch splitting the checkpoint lists but that is certainly not a 2.6.12 thing. And this bigger patch needs the two one-line fixes anyway. I'll elaborate more in the mails with the patches... Honza -- Jan Kara SuSE CR Labs