lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [8/18] BKL-removal: Remove BKL from remote_llseek
If two seeks overlap, can't you end up with an f_pos value that is
different than what either thread seeked to? or if you have a seek and
a read overlap can't you end up with the read occurring in the midst
of an update of f_pos (which takes more than one instruction on
various architectures), e.g. reading an f_pos, which has only the
lower half of a 64 bit field updated? I agree that you shouldn't
have seeks racing in parallel but I think it is preferable to get
either the updated f_pos or the earlier f_pos not something 1/2
updated.
On Jan 27, 2008 11:56 AM, Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 10:57 -0600, Steve French wrote:
> > Don't you need to a spinlock/spinunlock(i_lock) or something similar
> > (there isn't a spinlock in the file struct unfortunately) around the
> > reads and writes from f_pos in fs/read_write.c in remote_llseek with
> > your patch since the reads/writes from that field are not necessarily
> > atomic and threads could be racing in seek on the same file struct?
>
> Where does is state in POSIX or SUS that we need to cater to that kind
> of application?
> In any case, the current behaviour of f_pos if two threads are sharing
> the file struct is undefined no matter whether you spinlock or not,
> since there is no special locking around sys_read() or sys_write().
>
> Trond
>



--
Thanks,

Steve


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-27 23:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site