From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: linux-next: next-20090609 hangs in early user mode Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:19:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20090610131909.GB6647@mit.edu> References: <20090610180058.99bd3dda.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090610130054.GR8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Stephen Rothwell , LKML , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:50878 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756960AbZFJNTn (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:19:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090610130054.GR8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 02:00:54PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > Yes, it's obviously bogus. Dropped from the tree; I don't think it's > really salvagable - even merging into one unsigned long will not be > enough, since we will end up with different locking for different bits. Oops, sorry, I didn't realize we were using bitops for i_state. As far as I can tell we're not using the bitops functions for i_flags, though. Is that right? So we can convert i_flags to be a unsigned short, but we can't do anything with i_state. - Ted