Re: [patch/2.4] ll_rw_blk stomping on bh state [Re: kernel BUG at journal.c:1732! (2.4.19)]

From: Andrew Morton (akpm@digeo.com)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 12:57:05 EST


"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?

If so, how about setting a new state bit which causes subsequent
IO attempts to silently drop the IO on the floor?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 22:00:26 EST