On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 09:56:12PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > [PATCH] block: replace __getblk_slow misfix by grow_dev_page fix
>
> I noticed this (second version) went upstream already. Nevertheless I
> tested it today and it doesn't cause a re
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 09:56:12PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 06:33:45PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Jeff,
> > >
> > > Your commit 91f68c89d8f3 ("block: fix infinite loop in __getblk_slow"),
> > > already gone into 3
Hugh Dickins writes:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Hugh Dickins writes:
>>
>> > [PATCH] block: replace __getblk_slow misfix by grow_dev_page fix
>> >
>> > Commit 91f68c89d8f3 ("block: fix infinite loop in __getblk_slow")
>> > is not good: a successful call to grow_buffers() cannot
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Hugh Dickins writes:
>
> > [PATCH] block: replace __getblk_slow misfix by grow_dev_page fix
> >
> > Commit 91f68c89d8f3 ("block: fix infinite loop in __getblk_slow")
> > is not good: a successful call to grow_buffers() cannot guarantee
> > that the page wo
Hugh Dickins writes:
> [PATCH] block: replace __getblk_slow misfix by grow_dev_page fix
>
> Commit 91f68c89d8f3 ("block: fix infinite loop in __getblk_slow")
> is not good: a successful call to grow_buffers() cannot guarantee
> that the page won't be reclaimed before the immediate next call to
>
On 08/23/2012 06:56 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> [PATCH] block: replace __getblk_slow misfix by grow_dev_page fix
>
> Commit 91f68c89d8f3 ("block: fix infinite loop in __getblk_slow")
> is not good: a successful call to grow_buffers() cannot guarantee
> that the page won't be reclaimed before the imm
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 06:33:45PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Jeff,
> >
> > Your commit 91f68c89d8f3 ("block: fix infinite loop in __getblk_slow"),
> > already gone into 3.* stable, is not good. Could you and your testers
> > please give this a
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 06:33:45PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Your commit 91f68c89d8f3 ("block: fix infinite loop in __getblk_slow"),
> already gone into 3.* stable, is not good. Could you and your testers
> please give this alternative a try - I think it should work, and have
> start
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 06:33:45PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Your commit 91f68c89d8f3 ("block: fix infinite loop in __getblk_slow"),
> already gone into 3.* stable, is not good. Could you and your testers
> please give this alternative a try - I think it should work, and have
> start
9 matches
Mail list logo