From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754692AbYJZAIZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:08:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754525AbYJZAIM (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:08:12 -0400 Received: from ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net ([203.16.214.146]:2776 "EHLO ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754401AbYJZAIK (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:08:10 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am4DAM8S9kh5LE2tgWdsb2JhbACTYAEBFiKuDIFr X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,486,1220193000"; d="scan'208";a="218117219" Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:08:04 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Tiago Maluta Subject: Re: [Bug #11805] mounting XFS produces a segfault Message-ID: <20081026000804.GC11948@disturbed> Mail-Followup-To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Tiago Maluta References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:06:44PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > of recent regressions. > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > from 2.6.27. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know > (either way). > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11805 > Subject : mounting XFS produces a segfault > Submitter : Tiago Maluta > Date : 2008-10-21 18:00 (5 days old) Ah - this was reported as a 2.6.26 -> 2.6.27 regression, not a .27->.28-rcX regression. Even so, it's not obviously an XFS regression as the problem is that alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL) is the new failure on .27. The fact that XFS never handled the allocation failure is not a new bug or regression - it has never caught failures during log allocation... So really, if you want to look for a regression here, it is the change of behaviour in the VM leading to a memory allocation failure where it has never, ever previously failed... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com