[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121130024910.GF6434@dastard>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:49:10 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>,
Chris Mason <clmason@...ionio.com>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Do a proper locking for mmap and block size change
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:16:50PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com> wrote:
> >
> > Just reading the new blkdev_get_blocks, it looks like we're mixing
> > shifts. In direct-io.c map_bh->b_size is how much we'd like to map, and
> > it has no relation at all to the actual block size of the device. The
> > interface is abusing b_size to ask for as large a mapping as possible.
>
> Ugh. That's a big violation of how buffer-heads are supposed to work:
> the block number is very much defined to be in multiples of b_size
> (see for example "submit_bh()" that turns it into a sector number).
>
> But you're right. The direct-IO code really *is* violating that, and
> knows that get_block() ends up being defined in i_blkbits regardless
> of b_size.
Same with mpage_readpages(), so it's not just direct IO that has
this problem....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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