On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 15:58 (+0200), Wang Shilong wrote: > It seems the original code doesn't pass the right arg gfp_t to decide how to allocate. > Just applying this patch, fsstress will fail. So please ignore this patch, will resend later.. That's in fact what the comment above the line you changed implies :-) -Jan > Thanks, > Wang > >> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> We have passed arg gfp_mask to tree_mod_alloc(), so >> just use it rather than always use GFP_ATOMIC. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c >> index de6de8e..0e3514f 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c >> @@ -553,7 +553,7 @@ static inline int tree_mod_alloc(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, gfp_t flags, >> * once we switch from spin locks to something different, we should >> * honor the flags parameter here. >> */ >> - tm = *tm_ret = kzalloc(sizeof(*tm), GFP_ATOMIC); >> + tm = *tm_ret = kzalloc(sizeof(*tm), flags); >> if (!tm) >> return -ENOMEM; >> >> -- >> 1.7.11.7 >> > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
