Re: I think "btrfs: fix leak of path in btrfs_find_item" broke stable trees ...

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 3/26/15 9:48 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...

>>>>  9c4f61f btrfs: simplify insert_orphan_item
>>>>
>>>>  made the whole path alloc/free go away.
>>
>> so I think there's no need for my patch; may as well just send the above to stable
>> and fix it that way, as long as 9c4f61f is deemed safe & correct, I think.
> 
> Nice catch, thanks Eric. 9c4f61f looks fine for stable to me, but
> since he's already testing on stable, I talked Eric into giving it a
> pass through xfstests before I send it up.
> 
> -chris

./check -g auto on 3.19-stable-ish seems fine-ish.  Certainly no worse w/ the patch added :)

Failures: btrfs/010 btrfs/017 btrfs/078 generic/015 generic/039 generic/040 generic/041 generic/065 generic/066 generic/071 generic/204
Failed 11 of 202 tests

I'd say ship it!

-Eric

--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux