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

Indeed... :(

quoted text
> And I've just sent that buggy patch to Linus.  Do you agree?

Shame on me... Sorry :(

(going to the blackboard to write "I will check my patches twice before
 sending them to Andrew" for 100 times)
-
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/