On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 04:37:30PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > This looks bogus. It may be - I just did what Al told me without really understanding it ;-) The test I did initially was the following: if(!atomic_read(&bh->b_count) && (destroy_dirty_buffers || !buffer_dirty(bh)) && ! (bh->b_page && bh->b_page->mapping) ) That is, I was explicitely checking for a mapped page. It worked well, too. Is this more reasonable? Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- fs corruption with invalidate_buffers() Jan Niehusmann
- Re: fs corruption with invalidate_buffers() Jan Niehusmann
- [PATCH] Re: fs corruption with invalidate_buffer... Jan Niehusmann
- Re: [PATCH] Re: fs corruption with invalidat... Udo A. Steinberg
- Re: [PATCH] Re: fs corruption with inval... Alexander Viro
- Re: [PATCH] Re: fs corruption with ... Jan Niehusmann
- [PATCH] Re: fs corruption with inva... Jan Niehusmann
- Re: [PATCH] Re: fs corruption w... Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] Re: fs corrupti... Jan Niehusmann
- Re: [PATCH] Re: fs corrupti... Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] Re: fs corrupti... Jan Niehusmann
- Re: [PATCH] Re: fs corrupti... Alexander Viro