Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:40:57 +0200 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/5] mm: fault vs invalidate/truncate race fix |
| |
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 08:37:39AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > Are you saying that something like this would be preferable? > > > > I think so, it is neater and clearer. I actually didn't even bother relocking > > and checking the page again on readpage error so got rid of quite a bit of > > code. > > Well, the readpage error should be rare (and for the _normal_ case we just > do the "wait_on_page_locked()" thing). And I think we should lock the page > in order to do the truncation check, no?
Definitely.
> But I don't have any really strong feelings. I'm certainly ok with the > patch I sent out. How about putting it through -mm? Here's my sign-off: > > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> > > if you want to send it off to Andrew (or if Andrew wants to just take it > himself ;)
OK... maybe it can wait till the other changes, and we can think about it then. I'll carry around the split out patct, though.
> Btw, how did you even notice this? Just by reading the source, or because > you actually saw multiple errors reported?
Reading the source, thinking about the cleanups we can do if filemap_nopage takes the page lock...
- 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/
| |