Re: [patch] fs: avoid I_NEW inodes

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:57:48 +0100
Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:24:20PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 11-03-09 04:29:18, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > How about this?
> >   Looks fine to me.
> 
> Thanks for the good review. Andrew, do you think you can apply this
> on top of the previous patch? I'm undecided as to whether they should
> go together or not. Probably the first one is a minimal fix that
> doesn't alter behaviour as much, but things seem more robust after this
> 2nd patch. I think both would probably be suitable for 2.6.29, being a
> nasty bug, but it isn't a recent regression AFAIKS.
> 

How's about we do fs-new-inode-i_state-corruption-fix.patch in 2.6.29
and fs-avoid-i_new-inodes.patch in 2.6.30?  We could backport
fs-avoid-i_new-inodes.patch into 2.6.29.x if needed.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/