On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:48:48 +1000 Neil Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> The following patch will remove the extra seqlock except when we
> actually need it and remove the extra arithmetic - but I haven't
> tested it or reviewed it properly. I can do that if you think it is
> the right direction.
Yes, the optimisation is valid and looks useful.
> ./mm/filemap.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
It didn't apply - your tree seems different from mine.
> + *
> + * NOTE: This access of inode->i_size is not protected
> + * and if there is a concurrent update on a 32bit machine,
> + * it could return the wrong value. This could only be a problem
> + * if i_size has actually changed to a smaller value before the
> + * page became uptodate, and at this point it still has a smaller
> + * value, but due to a race while reading, it appears unchanged.
> + * The chances of this happening are so small and the consequence
> + * sufficiently minor, that the cost of the seqlock seems
> + * not to be justified.
please consider incorporating scripts/checkpatch.pl into your patch
preparation toolchain.
-
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]
