Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 08 Oct 1999 22:26:51 +0200 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: how to write get_block? |
| |
Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > I really don't think it make sense to let write(2) to be SMP parallel as > it would be unreliable and thus useless. So basically allowing more writes > to enter the critical section looks an useless improvement and lose of > robustness to me.
a) we must allow concurrent write operations for pipes (O_NONBLOCK).
b) are you sure that these statements are true for a large database?
I think the right aproach would be new functions [public, because needed by nfsd and arch/*/kernel/sys*.c]
int inode_lock_write(inode, filp, offset, len); ... int inode_lock_rename(inode_source,inode_dest); ...
and flags so that the f_ops implementation can choose the amount of synchronization it needs.
Or you could add new function pointers to f_ops/i_ops for synchronization.
-- Manfred
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |