On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 14:52 -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 04:24:23PM -0600, Adam Litke wrote:
> > My only concern is if I am using the correct lock for the job here.
>
> ->i_lock looks rather fishy. It may have been necessary when ->i_blocks
> was used for nefarious purposes, but without ->i_blocks fiddling, it's
> not needed unless I somehow missed the addition of some custom fields
> to hugetlbfs inodes and their modifications by any of these functions.
Nope, all the i_blocks stuff is gone. I was just looking for a
spin_lock for serializing all allocations for a particular hugeltbfs
file and i_lock seemed to fit that bill. It could be said, however,
that the locking strategy used in the patch protects a section of code,
not a data structure (which can be a bad idea). Any thoughts on a less
"fishy" locking strategy for this case?
--
Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com)
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
