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
