From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n1ANL9FU082567 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:21:09 -0600 Message-ID: <49920CB5.1020103@sgi.com> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:24:37 +1100 From: Lachlan McIlroy MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: fix error handling in xfs_log_mount References: <20090210194422.767988000@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090210194515.509547000@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090210195756.GA7569@infradead.org> <1E52072E-CA98-430B-9B2F-FDD0FDD1A7A4@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <1E52072E-CA98-430B-9B2F-FDD0FDD1A7A4@sgi.com> Reply-To: lachlan@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Felix Blyakher Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com Felix Blyakher wrote: > > On Feb 10, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:56:31PM -0600, Felix Blyakher wrote: >>> Isn't it a reworked Lachlan's patch: >>> >>> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2009-02/msg00175.html >> >> The patch isn't related to that one at all, > > ... from the implementation point of view, yes. > >> but it aims to fix the >> same issue. > > That's what I meant. > >> Should probably get a Reported-by: tag for him, > > Seems reasonable. > >> if >> this is indeed the thing the original patch tried to fix. > > That was my understanding. Let's Lachlan pitch in. I'd prefer both fixes go in so we have maximum defence against this problem happening again but I'm really not fussed. > > Felix > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs