[lustre-devel] [PATCH] staging/lustre/osc: Revert erroneous list_for_each_entry_safe use

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:29:36AM -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> 
> On Dec 7, 2016, at 5:40 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:53:48PM -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> >> I have been having a lot of unexplainable crashes in osc_lru_shrink
> >> lately that I could not see a good explanation for and then I found
> >> this patch that slip under the radar somehow that incorrectly
> >> converted while loop for lru list iteration into
> >> list_for_each_entry_safe totally ignoring that in the body of
> >> the loop we drop spinlocks guarding this list and move list entries
> >> around.
> >> Not sure why it was not showing up right away, perhaps some of the
> >> more recent LRU changes committed caused some extra pressure on this
> >> code that finally highlighted the breakage.
> >> 
> >> Reverts: 8adddc36b1fc ("staging: lustre: osc: Use list_for_each_entry_safe")
> >> CC: Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@gmail.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>
> >> ---
> >> I also do not see this patch in any of the mailing lists I am subscribed to.
> >> I wonder if there's a way to subscribe to those Greg's
> >> "This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch ...."
> >> emails that concern Lustre to get them even if I am not on the CC list in
> >> the patch itself?
> > 
> > This came in from the Outreacy application process, which now requires
> > that they cc: the maintainers to catch this type of issue.  So you
> > should have seen these types of patches this last round, the commit you
> > reference was done before that change happened, sorry.
> 
> Do you know approximate date range of when these patches ere sneaking in?

Anytime before a few months ago.

> I'd like to take a look at the rest of it proactively just to see if there are
> more undiscovered surprises?

If your testing isn't finding any problems, all should be good, right?
:)