Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow
start = start bsbits;
Hi Aneesh,
your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also
loff_t, start_off = ac-ac_o_ex.fe_logical bsbits also overflows.
I guess start should be of type loff_t. Patch
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start bsbits;
Hi Aneesh,
your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also
loff_t, start_off = ac-ac_o_ex.fe_logical bsbits
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start bsbits;
Hi Aneesh,
your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also
loff_t, start_off = ac-ac_o_ex.fe_logical bsbits
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:09:41PM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start bsbits;
Hi Aneesh,
your patch below doesn't fix the
A simple dd oopses the kernel (2.6.24-rc7 with the latest patch queue):
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/test/foo bs=1M count=8096
EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled
[ cut here ]
kernel BUG at fs/ext4/mballoc.c:3148!
The BUG_ON is:
BUG_ON(size = 0 || size =
On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 20:11 +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
A simple dd oopses the kernel (2.6.24-rc7 with the latest patch queue):
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/test/foo bs=1M count=8096
EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled
[ cut here ]
kernel BUG at fs/ext4/mballoc.c:3148!
The
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:48:27AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 20:11 +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
A simple dd oopses the kernel (2.6.24-rc7 with the latest patch queue):
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/test/foo bs=1M count=8096
EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled
[ cut
