[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:52:32 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Dmitriy Monakhov <dmonakhov@...ru>
Cc: Dmitriy Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<devel@...nvz.org>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] incorrect error handling inside
generic_file_direct_write
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:20:52 +0300
Dmitriy Monakhov <dmonakhov@...ru> wrote:
> > XFS (at least) can call generic_file_direct_write() with i_mutex not held.
> > And vmtruncate() expects i_mutex to be held.
> >
> > I guess a suitable solution would be to push this problem back up to the
> > callers: let them decide whether to run vmtruncate() and if so, to ensure
> > that i_mutex is held.
> >
> > The existence of generic_file_aio_write_nolock() makes that rather messy
> > though.
> This means we may call generic_file_aio_write_nolock() without i_mutex, right?
> but call trace is :
> generic_file_aio_write_nolock()
> ->generic_file_buffered_write() /* i_mutex not held here */
> but according to filemaps locking rules: mm/filemap.c:77
> ..
> * ->i_mutex (generic_file_buffered_write)
> * ->mmap_sem (fault_in_pages_readable->do_page_fault)
> ..
> I'm confused a litle bit, where is the truth?
xfs_write() calls generic_file_direct_write() without taking i_mutex for
O_DIRECT writes.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists