Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:03:05 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: test13-pre6 |
| |
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: > > Two examples: devices and bitmaps-in-pagecache trick. But both belong to > 2.5, so...
Also, they can easily be done with a private inode, if required. So even in 2.5.x this may not be a major problem.
> BTW, nice timing ;-) -pre6 appeared 5 minutes after I've started testing > sane-s_lock patch (SMP-safe lock_super() and friends, refcount on superblocks, > death of mount_sem, beginning of SMP-safe super.c). Oh, well... > > Oblock_super(): what the hell is wait_on_super() doing in fsync_file()? > It gives absolutely no warranties - ->write_super() can easily block, so > it looks very odd.
A lot of the superblock locking has been odd. It should probably be a lock_super() + unlock_super(). At least that's what sync_supers() does.
> BTW, while we are dropping the junk from vm_operations_struct, could we lose > ->protect() and ->wppage()?
Sure. I think sync() and unmap() fall under that heading too - it used to do a msync(), but that was before we handled dirty pages directly, so...
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |