From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Rohner Subject: Re: [PATCH] nilfs2: fix data loss with mmap() Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:44:16 +0200 Message-ID: <541AB780.2010708@gmx.net> References: <20140916.225726.1211879952201061873.konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> <5419436E.4030501@gmx.net> <20140917.213439.867924114484975245.konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20140918.162416.1553343892940167544.konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140918.162416.1553343892940167544.konishi.ryusuke-Zyj7fXuS5i5L9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nilfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Ryusuke Konishi Cc: linux-nilfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On 2014-09-18 09:24, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:34:39 +0900 (JST), Ryusuke Konishi wrote: >> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:16:46 +0200, Andreas Rohner wrote: >>> On 2014-09-16 15:57, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: >>>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:38:29 +0200, Andreas Rohner wrote: >>>>>> I'd appreciate your help on testing the patch for some old kernels. >>>>>> (And, please declare a "Tested-by" tag in the reply mail, if the test >>>>>> is ok). >>>>> >>>>> Sure I have everything set up. Which kernels do I have to test? Was >>>>> commit 136e877 backported? I presume at least stable and some of the >>>>> longterm kernels on https://www.kernel.org/... >>>> >>>> The commit 136e877 was merged to v3.10 and backported to stable trees >>>> of earlier kernels. But, most of earlier stable trees are no longer >>>> maintained. Well maintained trees are the following longterm kernels: >>>> >>>> - 3.4.y (backported commit 136e877) >>>> - 3.10.y >>>> - 3.14.y >>>> >>>> I think these three kernels are worty to be tested. >>> >>> I tested it on all stable kernels including 3.4.x, 3.10.x, 3.14.x. The >>> bug is present in all of them and the patch fixes it. The patch also >>> applies cleanly on all kernels. I sent it again yesterday, and added the >>> Tested-by: tag. > > One thing I have a question. > > Is the original issue that commit 136e877 fixed still OK ? If you > haven't tested it, I apprecicate if you examine the test for the prior > issue. Yes the original issue is still fixed. I was able to reproduce it by reverting nilfs_set_page_dirty() to the state prior to commit 136e877. Then I used the new version of nilfs_set_page_dirty() including my patch and I couldn't reproduce the issue anymore. So it seems to still be fixed. Furthermore the original issue was caused by the use of __set_page_dirty_buffers(), which marked unmapped buffers as dirty. My patch does not change the fix for that. br, Andreas Rohner -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html