On Wed, 2019-04-10 at 14:41 +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 2:12 PM Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 08:07:15PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > 
> > > > I'm unable to find a branch matching the line numbers.
> > > > 
> > > > Given that, on the face of it, the scenario is impossible I'm
> > > > seeking clarification on what linux-next to look at for the
> > > > sake of accuracy.
> > > > 
> > > > So I'm wondering if this testing done using the master branch
> > > > or one of the daily branches one would use to check for conflicts
> > > > before posting?
> > > 
> > > Sorry those are tags not branches.
> > 
> > FWIW, that's next-20181214; it is what master had been in mid-December
> > and master is rebased every day.  Can it be reproduced with the current
> > tree?
> 
> From the info on the dashboard we know that it happened only once on
> d14b746c (the second one is result of reproducing the first one). So
> it was either fixed or just hard to trigger.

Looking at the source of tag next-20181214 in linux-next-history I see
this is mistake I made due to incorrect error handling which I fixed
soon after (there was in fact a double iput()).

I'm pretty sure this never made it to a released kernel so unless
there's a report of this in a stable released kernel I'm going to
move on.

Thanks
Ian

Reply via email to