From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: mmotm 2010-02-10 - BUG at fs/dcache.c:677! Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:01:04 +0000 Message-ID: <20100212050104.GS30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <201002110043.o1B0hKxW008835@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <8576.1265942657@localhost> <20100211191427.6ff9aec6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4B74DE40.5030401@ce.jp.nec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens To: Jun'ichi Nomura Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B74DE40.5030401@ce.jp.nec.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 01:51:12PM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote: > (02/12/10 12:14), Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:44:17 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:17:41 PST, akpm@linux-foundation.org said: > >>> The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2010-02-10-16-17 has been uploaded to > >>> > >>> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/ > >> > >> Hit this at shutdown. ext4 filesystems. Brought it up to single-user > >> mode, then 'shutdown -h now'. > >> > >> [ 58.311786] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > >> [ 58.312261] kernel BUG at fs/dcache.c:677! > ... > > > Yeah, Sachin reported that against linux-next too (I think - need to > > check the exact line numbers): > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/38148 > > > > It seems to have been met with shrugs thus far. > > According to the Sachin's report: > > While running hackbench against today's next-20100208 (9056d31..) > > on a s390 box, came across following BUG. > ... > > Did not observe this with next-20100205. Also there doesn't seem to be > > any patches applied to this code after the last release. So not > > sure what could have caused this. Corresponding code is : > > So the bug seems introduced between next-20100205 and next-20100208. > > Isn't this change missing the equivalent of "dput(old)"? Argh... Nice catch, and yes, it is.