Re: [final fix] Re: Another ext2fs issue with 2.4.0-test8-final

2000-09-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: > > Arrggh. Linus, buffer can be up-to-date, but unmapped. Marking it dirty is > illegal, indeed. IOW, we need to (cut-and-paste alert) Goopd catch. Yes, we should just do the mapped/uptodate checks in the other order. Good call.

Re: [final fix] Re: Another ext2fs issue with 2.4.0-test8-final

2000-09-10 Thread Udo A. Steinberg
Alexander Viro wrote: > > Urgh. Look for BUG in syslog (right before the oops). AFAICS it should be > line 711, i.e. > if (!buffer_mapped(bh)) > BUG(); Yes, I saw that. I've applied the patch you posted and it appears to work well. The same procedures that formerly broke

Re: [final fix] Re: Another ext2fs issue with 2.4.0-test8-final

2000-09-10 Thread Udo A. Steinberg
Alexander Viro wrote: Urgh. Look for BUG in syslog (right before the oops). AFAICS it should be line 711, i.e. if (!buffer_mapped(bh)) BUG(); Yes, I saw that. I've applied the patch you posted and it appears to work well. The same procedures that formerly broke it

Re: [final fix] Re: Another ext2fs issue with 2.4.0-test8-final

2000-09-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: Arrggh. Linus, buffer can be up-to-date, but unmapped. Marking it dirty is illegal, indeed. IOW, we need to (cut-and-paste alert) Goopd catch. Yes, we should just do the mapped/uptodate checks in the other order. Good call. Linus