From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757342Ab1EUVu2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 May 2011 17:50:28 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:34584 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754357Ab1EUVuZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 May 2011 17:50:25 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 14:49:10 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Hugh Dickins Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, stable-review@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Konstantin Khlebnikov Subject: Re: [15/24] tmpfs: fix spurious ENOSPC when racing with unswap Message-ID: <20110521214910.GB5912@suse.de> References: <20110519183127.122729561@clark.kroah.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:49:59AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Thu, 19 May 2011, Greg KH wrote: > > 2.6.33-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. > > We've got in a muddle on this one: too many tmpfs races and too many trees! Yeah, it's messy :( > So far, so good: indeed let's have the spurious ENOSPC fix in > 33-longterm. > > But here this 15/24 patch veers off into a quite different patch, > for "tmpfs: fix race between umount and writepage" (46/71 in the > 38-stable series). I've appended the actual ENOSPC backport at the end. > > Yes, let's have this writepage fix in 33-longterm too (the 38-stable > patch should apply), but it does need "tmpfs: fix race between swapoff > and writepage" (47/71 in the 38-stable series) on top to correct it, > please add that in too. > > For differing reasons, none of these races is as likely in 2.6.33 > as in 2.6.38, but good to include the fixes anyway; whereas 2.6.32 > gets more complicated for some of them, so I haven't bothered there. > > (I think I'm reading the mails right, but of course made a fool of > myself in the past, because of how gmail "rationalized" my view of > them: I hope this won't be another such case.) Ok, as this really isn't a big deal for .33, how about I just drop all of the tmpfs patches for .33-longterm and we call it a day :) It's easier that way for me by far. If you think these really should all go to .33, can you send me the individual patches so I know exactly what ones, and in what order, to apply? thanks, greg k-h