From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Bormuth Subject: Re: [patch] reiser4-for-2.6.20 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 04:08:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20070211030843.GA11530@efil.de> References: <20070205030106.GA10122@efil.de> <8898527.post@talk.nabble.com> <20070210150900.GA8973@efil.de> <8901836.post@talk.nabble.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8901836.post@talk.nabble.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: squadra Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com On 2007-02-10 07:47, squadra wrote: > diff -puN fs/fs-writeback.c~reiser4-sb_sync_inodes-fix fs/fs-writeback.c > --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c~reiser4-sb_sync_inodes-fix > +++ a/fs/fs-writeback.c > @@ -317,6 +317,8 @@ int generic_sync_sb_inodes(struct super_ > const unsigned long start = jiffies; /* livelock avoidance */ > int ret = 0; > > + spin_lock(&inode_lock); > + > if (!wbc->for_kupdate || list_empty(&sb->s_io)) > list_splice_init(&sb->s_dirty, &sb->s_io); > > > since i applied this patch ontop of yours, the error didnt accour anymore. Nice to hear that you Problem has gone away. Nevertheless I'm a bit confused. The 'spin_lock(&inode_lock);' line is already there (it's part of the official code since reiser4-for-2.6.11). There might have been an other issue... Cheers Ingo -- Ingo Bormuth, voicebox & fax: +49-(0)-12125-10226517 public key 86326EC9, http://ibormuth.efil.de/contact