Re: [PATCH]: ufs: ufs_get_locked_patch race fix

On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:02:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:57:02 +0400
> Evgeniy Dushistov <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Looks good to me.
> 
> Is there any need to be checking ->index?  Normally we simply use the
> sequence:
> 
> 	lock_page(page);
> 	if (page->mapping == NULL)
> 		/* truncate got there first */
> 
> to handle this case.

Yes, I made it in analogy with `find_lock_page' and missed fact
that if we increment usage counter of page, we have no need to check
page->index.

Need another patch?

-- 
/Evgeniy

-
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]: ufs: ufs_get_locked_patch race fix
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH]: ufs: ufs_get_locked_patch race fix
    • From: Evgeniy Dushistov <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH]: ufs: ufs_get_locked_patch race fix
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH]: ufs: ufs_get_locked_patch race fix
• Next by Date: Re: [BLOCK] bh: Ensure bh fits within a page
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH]: ufs: ufs_get_locked_patch race fix
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH]: ufs: ufs_get_locked_patch race fix
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]