From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mike Snitzer" Subject: potential regression in ext[34] call to __page_symlink()? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:11:48 -0400 Message-ID: <170fa0d20810281711s2a508ed2o1af0db30733e8d2d@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Nick Piggin" , "Kirill Korotaev" To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.191]:31825 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752580AbYJ2ALv (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:11:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: The gfp_mask that is passed to __page_symlink() is being completely dropped on the floor. Historically this mask was at least used by ext3 and ext4 to avoid recursing back into the FS from within a journal transaction; Kirill fixed that issue with this commit: 0adb25d2e71ab047423d6fc63d5d184590d0a66f I'm quite naive when it comes to Nick's relatively new (>= 2.6.24) AOP pagecache_write_{begin,end} code that motivated __page_symlink to change with this commit: afddba49d18f346e5cc2938b6ed7c512db18ca68 Nick's change clearly did away with using the explicitly passed gfp_mask in __page_symlink(). So at a minimum it would seem __page_symlink() now has an unused parameter that should be removed. But a more serious concern would be: have ext[34]_symlink() regressed to being susceptible to the bug that Kirill fixed some time ago? Please advise, thanks. Mike