On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:30:43 +0400
Evgeniy Dushistov <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
OK. find_lock_page() has the splice stuff in it.
> Need another patch?
Is OK, I updated it.
I'm not sure that the `goto repeat' is needed if truncate got there first,
really - if truncate took the page down then it's now outside i_size and
shouldn't be coming back.
If the page _can_ come back then this code is all rather problematic.
Because this means that the page can come back (via an extending write())
one nanosecond after ufs_get_locked_page() returns NULL. Won't the callers
of ufs_get_locked_page() get confused by that?
-
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]
