| Message ID | 1241003611-3652-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| State | Deferred |
| Headers | show |
You mean "for 2.6.30", right? - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 02:58:41PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > You mean "for 2.6.30", right? > The reason for me to post two series one for 2.6.30 and other for 2.6.31 was the [Patch 2/2] for 2.6.31 needs more testing. I added this specific patch in both the series to make sure we don't miss the change in case we decided not to make any changes for 2.6.30. Also in my testing I created different topgit branches with different dependencies. So having [PATCH 1/2 ] in both the series helped in testing with topgit branches. -aneesh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 12:35:46AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 02:58:41PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > You mean "for 2.6.30", right? > > > > The reason for me to post two series one for 2.6.30 and other for 2.6.31 > was the [Patch 2/2] for 2.6.31 needs more testing. I added this specific > patch in both the series to make sure we don't miss the change in case > we decided not to make any changes for 2.6.30. Also in my testing I created > different topgit branches with different dependencies. So having [PATCH > 1/2 ] in both the series helped in testing with topgit branches. Yeah, but you didn't label the other series as "for 2.6.30". To makes matter worse, the fact that patch #2 in what I think is your 2.6.30 patch series (the V4 series?) is the same as patch #1 of your 2.6.31 series, and your "2.6.31" series doesn't have a patch backing out the 2.6.30 changes (I assume you need to do that, right?), left me as a very confused maintainer about. OK, so what I have in the patch queue is the V4 version, somewhat modified, and I'll ignore the "for 2.6.31" patches for now. When you're ready, please send me patches versus the end of the stable series of the ext4 patch queue, and please give me this kind of context. If you could verify what's in the patch queue, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c index e91f978..3afd5f1 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c @@ -2318,7 +2318,7 @@ static int ext4_da_get_block_prep(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock, /* not enough space to reserve */ return ret; - map_bh(bh_result, inode->i_sb, 0); + map_bh(bh_result, inode->i_sb, -1); set_buffer_new(bh_result); set_buffer_delay(bh_result); } else if (ret > 0) {
Block number '0' should not be used as the fake block number for the delayed new buffer. This will result in vfs calling umap_underlying_metadata for block number '0'. So use -1 instead. Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- fs/ext4/inode.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)