On Thu, Jun 01, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Do you want it like that?
> >
> > lock_page(page);
> > if (PageUptodate(page)) {
> > SetPageDirty(page);
> > mb();
> > return page;
> > }
>
> Not really ;) It's hacky. It'd be better to take a lock.
Which lock exactly? I'm not sure how to proceed from here.
-
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] cramfs corruption after BLKFLSBUF on loop device
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] cramfs corruption after BLKFLSBUF on loop device
- References:
- cramfs corruption after BLKFLSBUF on loop device
- From: Olaf Hering <[email protected]>
- Re: cramfs corruption after BLKFLSBUF on loop device
- From: Olaf Hering <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] cramfs corruption after BLKFLSBUF on loop device
- From: Olaf Hering <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] cramfs corruption after BLKFLSBUF on loop device
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] cramfs corruption after BLKFLSBUF on loop device
- From: Olaf Hering <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] cramfs corruption after BLKFLSBUF on loop device
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] cramfs corruption after BLKFLSBUF on loop device
- From: Olaf Hering <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] cramfs corruption after BLKFLSBUF on loop device
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- cramfs corruption after BLKFLSBUF on loop device
- Prev by Date: RE: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention
- Next by Date: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC 3/5] sched: Add CPU rate hard caps
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] cramfs corruption after BLKFLSBUF on loop device
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] cramfs corruption after BLKFLSBUF on loop device
- Index(es):
 |