[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101028200548.GC28126@thunk.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:05:48 -0400
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: sedat.dilek@...il.com
Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
sfr@...b.auug.org.au, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Avinash Kurup <kurup.avinash@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [next-20101038] Call trace in ext4
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 09:54:23PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
> Hm, unfortunately NO (see logs).
>
> I have compiled via M=fs/ext4 in an already compiled build-tree with
> these 3 patches.
Ok, stupid question. You did make sure the new ext4 module was
loaded, right?
> [ 100.884524] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 100.884718] kernel BUG at /home/sd/src/linux-2.6/linux-2.6.36/debian/build/source_i386_none/fs/ext4/inode.c:2721!
OK, so after the patch, line 2721: changed from page_buffers() to:
if (!page_has_buffers(page))
page_has_buffers() expands to:
#define page_has_buffers(page) PagePrivate(page)
which expands to test_bit() call to see if PG_private1 is set in
page->flags. There is no BUG_ON anywhere there as far as I can tell.
Line 2721 in the older kernel was page_has_buffers() which does have a
BUG_ON check.
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists