[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801281427.36048.ak@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:27:35 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>, swhiteho@...hat.com,
sfrench@...ba.org, vandrove@...cvut.cz,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [8/18] BKL-removal: Remove BKL from remote_llseek
On Monday 28 January 2008 13:56:05 Alan Cox wrote:
> > > No specific spec, just general quality of implementation.
> >
> > I completely agree. If one thread writes A and another writes B then the
> > kernel should record either A or B, not ((A & 0xffffffff00000000) | (B &
> > 0xffffffff))
>
> Agree entirely: the spec doesn't allow for random scribbling in the wrong
> place. It doesn't cover which goes first or who "wins" the race but
> provides pwrite/pread for that situation. Writing somewhere unrelated is
> definitely not to spec
Actually it would probably -- i guess it's undefined and in undefined
country such things can happen.
Also to be fair I think it's only a problem for the 4GB wrapping case
which is presumably rare (otherwise we would have heard about it)
Also worse really fixing it would be a major change to the VFS
because of the way ->read/write are defined :/
-Andi
--
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