Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:30:56 +0400 | From | Pavel Emelyanov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fix messed hunks in generic_setlease |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:57:45 +0400 Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org> 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 <xemul@openvz.org> >> >> --- >> >> 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.
Indeed... :(
> And I've just sent that buggy patch to Linus. Do you agree?
Shame on me... Sorry :(
(going to the blackboard to write "I will check my patches twice before sending them to Andrew" for 100 times) - 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/
| |