From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch] fs: avoid I_NEW inodes Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:19:15 -0700 Message-ID: <20090311131915.14b8ac71.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20090305064554.GA11916@wotan.suse.de> <20090305100000.GA29177@duck.suse.cz> <20090305101637.GB17815@wotan.suse.de> <20090305111226.GB29531@duck.suse.cz> <20090310134106.GA15977@wotan.suse.de> <20090310160321.GB1190@duck.suse.cz> <20090311032918.GE16561@wotan.suse.de> <20090311122420.GB24590@duck.suse.cz> <20090311125748.GA14144@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jack@suse.cz, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jorge@dti2.net, ext-adrian.hunter@nokia.com, stable@kernel.org To: Nick Piggin Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:37010 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750791AbZCKUXb (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:23:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090311125748.GA14144@wotan.suse.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:57:48 +0100 Nick Piggin wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:24:20PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 11-03-09 04:29:18, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > How about this? > > Looks fine to me. > > Thanks for the good review. Andrew, do you think you can apply this > on top of the previous patch? I'm undecided as to whether they should > go together or not. Probably the first one is a minimal fix that > doesn't alter behaviour as much, but things seem more robust after this > 2nd patch. I think both would probably be suitable for 2.6.29, being a > nasty bug, but it isn't a recent regression AFAIKS. > How's about we do fs-new-inode-i_state-corruption-fix.patch in 2.6.29 and fs-avoid-i_new-inodes.patch in 2.6.30? We could backport fs-avoid-i_new-inodes.patch into 2.6.29.x if needed.