On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:57:45 +0400 Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org> wrote:

quoted text
> 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.

And I've just sent that buggy patch to Linus.  Do you agree?
-
unsubscribe notice
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/