Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:39:38 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.10-pre11 |
| |
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 05:31:48AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > This also merges the blkdev in page cache patch, and that will hopefully > > make it noticeably easier to do the "do bread() with page cache too", at > > which point a lot of the current ugly synchronization issues will go away. > > Umm... Linus, had you actually read through the fs/block_device.c part > of that? It's not just ugly as hell, it's (AFAICS) not hard to oops > if you have several inodes sharing major:minor. ->bd_inode and its
can you show an exploit? I cannot reproduce any problem here:
root@athlon:/tmp > cp -a /dev/hda hda.1 root@athlon:/tmp > cp -a /dev/hda hda.2 root@athlon:/tmp > cp hda.1 /dev/null & cp hda.2 /dev/null & [1] 24981 [2] 24982 root@athlon:/tmp > fg cp hda.2 /dev/null
root@athlon:/tmp > fg cp hda.1 /dev/null
root@athlon:/tmp >
> treatment are bogus. Please, read it through and consider reverting - > in its current state code is an ugly mess.
what other design solution do you propose rather both inodes sharing the i_mapping across the different inodes like I did?
I found more handy to just bump the i_count of the first inode and referencing it from the bd_inode, rather than dynamically allocating the i_mapping and have a bd_mapping, but if you prefer to dynamically allocate the i_mapping rather than using the i_data of the fist inode we can change that of course. Not sure what's the mess in the patch you're talking about, could you elaborate?
Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |