From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:25:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:25:22 -0400 Received: from [195.223.140.107] ([195.223.140.107]:63214 "EHLO athlon.random") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:25:18 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:25:39 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Alexander Viro Cc: Linus Torvalds , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.10-pre11 Message-ID: <20010919202539.E720@athlon.random> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from viro@math.psu.edu on Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:11:56PM -0400 X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:11:56PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > the rest. Andrea, could you send it to me? In particular, I'm deeply > suspicious about changes in blkdev_put() in case of BDEV_FILE. of course, for the record you can also find it in the ftp area all splitted out, but I've no problem to send it via email too. Quite frankly the BDEV_* handling was and is a total mess IMHO, even if it was written by you ;), there was no difference at all from many of them, I didn't fixed that but I had to check all them on the differences until I realized there was none. I also think the other things you mentioned (besides the inode pinning bug, non critical) are not buggy (infact I never had a single report), but well we'll verify that in detail ASAP. Andrea