[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171124140413.GG5952@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 14:04:13 +0000
From: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
To: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Cc: Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@...hat.com>,
"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
"linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org" <linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
"kent.overstreet@...il.com" <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
"koverstreet@...gle.com" <koverstreet@...gle.com>,
"ejt@...hat.com" <ejt@...hat.com>,
"snitzer@...hat.com" <snitzer@...hat.com>,
"shli@...nel.org" <shli@...nel.org>,
"agk@...hat.com" <agk@...hat.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] dm: convert table_device.count from atomic_t to
refcount_t
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 08:29:42AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> By looking at the code, I don't see where the change in the reference counting
> could have caused this.
The cause was the bug I identified in patch 3, not this patch.
The regression is easily hit - tables that reference the same underlying device
more than once are very common.
Alasdair
Powered by blists - more mailing lists