From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: [patch 11/11] btrfs: The file argument for fsync() is never null Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:08:20 -0400 Message-ID: <20100614220804.GM18266@think> References: <20100529094907.GL5483@bicker> <20100614211120.GB5483@bicker> <20100614211601.GA27420@lst.de> <201006142345.42014.johannes.hirte@fem.tu-ilmenau.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Dan Carpenter , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Yan Zheng , Josef Bacik , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Hirte Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201006142345.42014.johannes.hirte@fem.tu-ilmenau.de> List-ID: On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:45:40PM +0200, Johannes Hirte wrote: > Am Montag 14 Juni 2010, 23:16:01 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:11:20PM +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > Looks like you've applied the patch to a far too old kernel. It can't > > > > be NULL for quite a while already. > > > > > > You're the expert, but it looks like it could be null in 2.6.34 like he > > > says. I'm just looking at vfs_fsync_range() in > > > "git show v2.6.34:fs/sync.c". > > > > 2.6.34 is far too old. > > For the changes yes, but not for working. I needed the btrfs fixes without all > the other bugs introduced with 2.6.35-rc. I was to careless and pulled to much > changes in. My fault. Well, my fault. I usually keep the btrfs-unstable tree against one release old, and the users have come to expect it. I'll make a .34 branch that works. -chris