From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755172AbYLGUcd (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:32:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753371AbYLGUcH (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:32:07 -0500 Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.org ([69.25.196.31]:41295 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753174AbYLGUcE (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:32:04 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 10:28:21 -0500 From: Theodore Tso To: Andrew Morton Cc: Eric Dumazet , linux kernel , "David S. Miller" , Peter Zijlstra , Mingming Cao , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu_counter: Fix __percpu_counter_sum() Message-ID: <20081207152821.GA9596@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Andrew Morton , Eric Dumazet , linux kernel , "David S. Miller" , Peter Zijlstra , Mingming Cao , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org References: <4936D287.6090206@cosmosbay.com> <4936EB04.8000609@cosmosbay.com> <20081206202233.3b74febc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081206202233.3b74febc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@mit.edu X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 08:22:33PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I suggest that what we do is to revert both those changes. We can > worry about the possibly-unneeded spin_lock later, in a separate patch. > > It should have been a separate patch anyway. It's conceptually > unrelated and is not a bugfix, but it was mixed in with a bugfix. > > Mingming, this needs urgent consideration, please. Note that I had to > make additional changes to ext4 due to the subsequent introduction of > the dirty_blocks counter. I've looked the two patches which you've queued in the -mm branch, and they look correct to me. The bugs fixed by these patches can potentially lead to filesystem corruption, since we ultimately use these fields to set the superblock values. This in my mind makes them stable candidates at the very least, and if we weren't so late in the 2.6.28 cycle, I'd be strongly tempted to push them to Linus as a bugfix before the merge window. Andrew, any strong objections for me to grab them for the ext4 tree? Or would you rather carry them? I would prefer that they get pushed to Linus as soon as the merge window opens, which is one reason why I'd prefer carry them, but we can do this either way. - Ted