From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [2002:d592:9a28::1] (helo=pentafluge.infradead.org) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1BnFdi-0005ii-Vw for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:52:03 -0400 From: David Woodhouse To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D8yvind?= Harboe In-Reply-To: <1090391133.15766.4.camel@famine> References: <1089643331.3951.42.camel@famine> <1089711000.2899.96.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <1089712151.5995.21.camel@famine> <1089713133.2899.117.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <1089726079.6288.5.camel@famine> <1089759689.8822.18.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> <1089792912.7607.22.camel@famine> <1090246707.13401.18.camel@famine> <1090250145.14173.3.camel@famine> <1090285839.4149.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1090305682.14825.2.camel@famine> <1090331120.4614.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1090337308.15094.2.camel@famine> <1090338869.4614.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1090349564.15140.3.camel@famine> <1090361318.9473.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1090391133.15766.4.camel@famine> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:51:43 -0400 Message-Id: <1090410703.4280.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: JFFS2 eats memory List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 08:25 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > in gc.c: > - 241 if (!raw->next_in_ino) { > - 251 ic = jffs2_raw_ref_to_ic(raw); Hmmm. Surely you shouldn't be able to get to those in the case where gc_node is NULL? You should hit the condition at line 218 because jeb->user_size should be zero. Remember, gc_node is the placemarker for the garbage-collector which is busily obsoleting every node in this block so that the block can be erased and returned to the free pool. If you were freeing a node, and there was no 'next' node when you did so, that must have meant you got to the end of the eraseblock, surely? Obviously I'm wrong -- you have empirical evidence. But why? PS. Will somebody please kick Beat Morf off the eCos list? He has an extremely broken autoresponder -- it's replying to the From: address in the mail instead of the SMTP reverse-path, it's replying with non-error message status so that it can cause mail loops, and it's not even rate-limited. I get a response for every mail I send. -- dwmw2