[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070710222209.5078e20b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:22:09 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: cmm@...ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:05:27 +1000 Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:
>
> It just occurred to me:
>
> If i_version is 64bit, then knfsd would need to be careful when
> reading it on a 32bit host. What are the locking rules?
>
> Presumably it is only updated under i_mutex protection, but having to
> get i_mutex to read it would seem a little heavy handed.
>
> Should it use a seqlock like i_size?
> Could we use the same seqlock that i_size uses, or would we need a
> separate one?
>
seqlocks are a bit of a pain to use (we've had plenty of deadlocks on the
i_size one). We could reuse inode.i_lock for this modification. Its
mandate is "general purpose innermost lock to protect stuff in this inode".
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists