On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 06:25:46PM +0800, levin li wrote: > It tries to compare the nr_copies with inode->nr_copies, > but the inode has just been allocated, the nr_copies may > be zero or something random I just saw this one went in. As per the thread in reply to my version of that patch I still think we need to do the inode->nr_copies limiting after the first read. Did anyone disagree with that rationale? (Not that it matter in practice as long as inode->nr_copies is guaranteed to be the same as sys->nr_copies) |