From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:52:36 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Pavel Shilovsky Cc: Ben Hutchings , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Jeff Layton , Steve French Subject: Re: [ 10/41] CIFS: Do not kmalloc under the flocks spinlock Message-ID: <20120323175236.GA9648@kroah.com> References: <20120316233829.GA14022@kroah.com> <20120316233811.484341257@linuxfoundation.org> <20120317023740.GH12704@decadent.org.uk> <1331969567.3022.233.camel@deadeye> <20120319155022.GC8176@kroah.com> <20120319192416.GE6339@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20120319192416.GE6339@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:24:16PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:11:35PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: > > 19 марта 2012 г. 19:50 пользователь Greg KH > > написал: > > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:52:24AM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: > > >> 17 марта 2012 г. 11:32 пользователь Ben Hutchings написал: > > >> > On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 10:14 +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: > > >> >> 17 марта 2012 г. 6:37 пользователь Ben Hutchings написал: > > >> >> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:38:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > >> >> >> 3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > >> > [...] > > >> >> > But we test this before flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX, which means we > > >> >> > don't know whether this lock actually needs to be assigned one of > > >> >> > those structures.  So it appears that we might report a spurious error > > >> >> > if the lock list ends with a mandatory lock.  If so, this is > > >> >> > relatively harmless but does need to be fixed. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> You are right here, thanks for the catch! I will repost the patch asap. > > >> > > > >> > This has already been merged into Linus's tree, so you need to submit a > > >> > patch to apply on top of it. > > >> > > > >> > > >> I posted two patches: > > >> 1) the whole fixed version for the stable tree [PATCH v2] CIFS: Do not > > >> kmalloc under the flocks spinlock > > > > > > What do you mean by "fixed version"? > > > > > >> 2) fixup for mainline [PATCH] CIFS: Fix a spurious error in > > >> cifs_push_posix_locks > > > > > > What do you mean by this? > > > > Ok, seems I didn't understand this process correctly. I reposted the > > new "fixed" version of this patch, because I thought it is more > > suitable for stale to merge one correct patch rather than one > > incorrect + follow-on fixup. Sorry if I was wrong. > > I need to stay identical with Linus's tree as much as possible, it's > easier for everyone in the end that way for tracking exactly what > happens. > > > > If there was a follow-on patch in Linus's tree that fixes a problem, I > > > need that git commit id, not a "fixed" patch that does not match up with > > > what is in Linus's tree right now. > > > > > > So, if that's the case, please let me know what the git commit id of > > > that patch is please. > > > > Steve has just merged the follow-on patch: > > http://git.samba.org/?p=sfrench/cifs-2.6.git;a=commit;h=ce85852b90a214cf577fc1b4f49d99fd7e98784a > > > > but seems hasn't sent a merge request to Linus yet - will let you know > > when the patch comes to Linus's tree. > > Ok, please let me know when this goes into Linus's tree and I will > queue it up for the next releases. It's there now, I've picked it up. greg k-h