On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 at 15:37, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> I think you're missing the context. There are bugs in how this filesystem
> handles intentionally-corrupted filesystems. That's being reported as
> a critical bug because apparently some distributions automount HFS/HFS+
> filesystems presen
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> I mean to say that we could have no CPU devices after the *second*
> patch. So the first patch is an extra defence against that. (Though we
> could just as well panic if register_cpu() fails at boot time.)
I think I'd rather just panic -
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 5:06 PM, richard -rw- weinberger
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice
>> to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get
>>
Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice
to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get
a tested-by.
Testing it on hacked-up x86 sounds fine, but doesn't quite have the
same kind of "yes, this fixes the actual problem" feel to it.
Also, can you c
4 matches
Mail list logo
