[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A05270.5040205@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:13:04 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>,
Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com>, nacc@...ibm.com,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support
(sorry if this is a resend... something bad seems to have happened to me)
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com> wrote:
>>>This code doesn't have all the ghastly tricks which we deploy to handle
>>>concurrent truncate.
>>
>>Do I need to ? Baaahh!! I don't want to deal with them.
>
>
> Nick, can you think of any serious consequences of a read/truncate race in
> there? I can't..
As it doesn't allow writes, then I _think_ it should be OK. If you
ever did want to add write(2) support, then you would have transient
zeroes problems.
But I'm not completely sure.. we've had a lot of (and still have
some known and probably unknown) bugs just in that single
generic_mapping_read function, most of which are due to our rabid
aversion to doing any locking whatsoever there.
So why not just hold i_mutex around the whole thing to be safe?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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