From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 18:53:45 +0000 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: [patch/2.4] ll_rw_blk stomping on bh state [Re: kernel BUG at journal.c:1732! (2.4.19)] Message-ID: <20021112185345.H2837@redhat.com> References: <20021028111357.78197071.nutts@penguinmail.com> <20021112150711.F2837@redhat.com> <3DD140F1.F4AED387@digeo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DD140F1.F4AED387@digeo.com>; from akpm@digeo.com on Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:57:05AM -0800 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Mark Hazell , adilger@clusterfs.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:57:05AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > "Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote: > > > > if (maxsector < count || maxsector - count < sector) { > > /* Yecch */ > > bh->b_state &= (1 << BH_Lock) | (1 << BH_Mapped); > > ... > > Folks, just which buffer flags do we want to preserve in this case? > Why do we want to clear any flags in there at all? To prevent > a storm of error messages from a buffer which has a silly block > number? That's the only reason I can think of. Simply scrubbing all the state bits is totally the wrong way of going about that, of course. > If so, how about setting a new state bit which causes subsequent > IO attempts to silently drop the IO on the floor? The only problem I could think of there would be weird interactions with LVM if somebody lvextends a volume and the buffer suddenly becomes valid again. I can't bring myself to care about breaking that situation. :-) --Stephen -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/