On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:57:45 +0400 Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have noticed, that one hunk was lost and one duplicated > during merging the fix-potential-oops-in-generic_setlease(-xxx) > patches. One of the fixes is already in the hot-fixes, but the > second one is still lost. > > The returned pointer was not the one allocated, but some temporary > used to scan through the inode's locks list. This caused and OOPS > during Kamalesh's testing. > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c > index c0fe71a..c1198e3 100644 > --- a/fs/locks.c > +++ b/fs/locks.c > @@ -1423,7 +1418,7 @@ int generic_setlease(struct file *filp, > locks_copy_lock(new_fl, lease); > locks_insert_lock(before, new_fl); > > - *flp = fl; > + *flp = new_fl; > return 0; > > out: argh, what a mess - there are way too many trees playing with fs/locks.c. umm, I think this is not a mismerge and that the original patch (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/20/141) had this bug in it. And I've just sent that buggy patch to Linus. Do you agree? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
