Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:39:12 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>This code doesn't have all the ghastly tricks which we deploy to handle >>>concurrent truncate. >> >>Do I need to ? Baaahh!! I don't want to deal with them. > > > Nick, can you think of any serious consequences of a read/truncate race in > there? I can't..
As it doesn't allow writes, then I _think_ it should be OK. If you ever did want to add write(2) support, then you would have transient zeroes problems.
But I'm not completely sure.. we've had a lot of (and still have some known and probably unknown) bugs just in that single generic_mapping_read function, most of which are due to our rabid aversion to doing any locking whatsoever there.
So why not just hold i_mutex around the whole thing to be safe?
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. - 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/
| |