-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> Andrea Righi wrote:
>> Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>>> I have the patchset that I mentioned, but I'm not proposing it for 2.6.21.
>>> It's much too invasive to be introduced in an -rc7, but it does include
>>> locking changes that I
Andrea Righi wrote:
> Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>> I have the patchset that I mentioned, but I'm not proposing it for 2.6.21.
>> It's much too invasive to be introduced in an -rc7, but it does include
>> locking changes that I believe avoid this bug.
>>
>> Vladimir was right in his analysis that
Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> I have the patchset that I mentioned, but I'm not proposing it for 2.6.21.
> It's much too invasive to be introduced in an -rc7, but it does include
> locking changes that I believe avoid this bug.
>
> Vladimir was right in his analysis that sometimes get_xa_root() takes the
Jeff Mahoney wrote:
I have the patchset that I mentioned, but I'm not proposing it for 2.6.21.
It's much too invasive to be introduced in an -rc7, but it does include
locking changes that I believe avoid this bug.
Vladimir was right in his analysis that sometimes get_xa_root() takes the
Andrea Righi wrote:
Jeff Mahoney wrote:
I have the patchset that I mentioned, but I'm not proposing it for 2.6.21.
It's much too invasive to be introduced in an -rc7, but it does include
locking changes that I believe avoid this bug.
Vladimir was right in his analysis that sometimes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Mahoney wrote:
Andrea Righi wrote:
Jeff Mahoney wrote:
I have the patchset that I mentioned, but I'm not proposing it for 2.6.21.
It's much too invasive to be introduced in an -rc7, but it does include
locking changes that I believe avoid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:00:00 -0400
> Jeff Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Do you think that could be a reason of the extra reference count on
>>> xattr_root dentry?
>> No, I don't think it is. Looking at the code
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:00:00 -0400
Jeff Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you think that could be a reason of the extra reference count on
> > xattr_root dentry?
>
> No, I don't think it is. Looking at the code now, it seems obvious, but
> I didn't notice it before and nobody else has
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:00:00 -0400
Jeff Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you think that could be a reason of the extra reference count on
xattr_root dentry?
No, I don't think it is. Looking at the code now, it seems obvious, but
I didn't notice it before and nobody else has reported
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:00:00 -0400
Jeff Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you think that could be a reason of the extra reference count on
xattr_root dentry?
No, I don't think it is. Looking at the code now, it seems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Wednesday 18 April 2007 12:52, ReiserFS Developers Mailing List wrote:
>> *Forwarded Conversation*
>> Subject: *[2.6.20.4] BUG: dentry xattrs still in use in
>> shrink_dcache_for_umount() with reiserfs*
>>
Hello
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 12:52, ReiserFS Developers Mailing List wrote:
> *Forwarded Conversation*
> Subject: *[2.6.20.4] BUG: dentry xattrs still in use in
> shrink_dcache_for_umount() with reiserfs*
>
>
> * From: Andrea Righi* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To:
>
Hello
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 12:52, ReiserFS Developers Mailing List wrote:
*Forwarded Conversation*
Subject: *[2.6.20.4] BUG: dentry xattrs still in use in
shrink_dcache_for_umount() with reiserfs*
* From: Andrea Righi* [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To:
[EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
Hello
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 12:52, ReiserFS Developers Mailing List wrote:
*Forwarded Conversation*
Subject: *[2.6.20.4] BUG: dentry xattrs still in use in
shrink_dcache_for_umount() with reiserfs*
14 matches
Mail list logo
