Jbd2: fix a bug of leaking jh->b_jcount
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): -1724257416234743088@unknownmsgid
Quoted 29 lines · On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:19 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Ding Dinghua <[email protected]>
drop
jh->b_jcountin error path
---
fs/jbd2/transaction.c | 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)fs/jbd2/transaction.c +0
-1@@ -921,8 +921,8 @@ int jbd2_journal_get_create_access(handle_t *handle, struct buffer_head *bh)*/ JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "cancelling revoke"); jbd2_journal_cancel_revoke(handle, jh); - jbd2_journal_put_journal_head(jh);out:
+jbd2_journal_put_journal_head(jh);
return err;
}--
1.7.4.1--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Signature · 6 lines
Best Wishes Yongqiang Yang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 1 line · Yongqiang Yang
Signed-off-by line was missed.
Also, one request --- if the leak is one that happens on the error path, please say so in the commit summary. That changes the priority of the patch compared to something which is much higher priority if it is always leaking on the common case code path.
Thanks!!
-- Ted
Quoted 1 line · Yongqiang Yang
Signed-off-by line was missed.
Ding,
Please resend the patch with the Signed-off-by, or tell me explicitly that it's OK to add:
The signed-off-by has legal meaning (see below) so it's not something I want to add on my own initiative without getting an explicit ack from the original author.
Regards,
- Ted
(From /usr/src/linux/Documentation/SubmittingPatches)
12) Sign your work
To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on patches that are being emailed around.
The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to pass it on as a open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you can certify the below:
Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I have the right to submit it under the open source license indicated in the file; or
(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source license and I have the right under that license to submit that work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the same open source license (unless I am permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated in the file; or
(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified it.
(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are public and that a record of the contribution (including all personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with this project or the open source license(s) involved.
then you just add a line saying
using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
Some people also put extra tags at the end. They'll just be ignored for now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just point out some special detail about the sign-off.
Hi Ted,
thanks for your suggestion, i have resent the patches, please have a look.
Quoted 71 lines · Ted Ts'o
Quoted 2 lines · Yongqiang Yang
Signed-off-by line was missed.Ding,
Please resend the patch with the Signed-off-by, or tell me explicitly that it's OK to add:
Signed-off-by Ding Dinghua <[email protected]>The signed-off-by has legal meaning (see below) so it's not something I want to add on my own initiative without getting an explicit ack from the original author.
Regards,
- Ted
(From
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/SubmittingPatches)12) Sign your work
To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on patches that are being emailed around.
The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to pass it on as a open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you can certify the below:
Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I have the right to submit it under the open source license indicated in the file; or
(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source license and I have the right under that license to submit that work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the same open source license (unless I am permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated in the file; or
(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified it.
(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are public and that a record of the contribution (including all personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with this project or the open source license(s) involved.
then you just add a line saying
Signed-off-by Random J Developer <[email protected]>using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
Some people also put extra tags at the end. They'll just be ignored for now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just point out some special detail about the sign-off.