On Thursday June 7, [email protected] wrote:
> 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.
Odd. I had no other changes to that file in my tree. I'll wait until
the next -mm(?).
It's just as well really, the patch was buggy - didn't even compile
and (as I said) totally untested. I'll get you a tested patch after I
can rebase.
>
> > + *
> > + * 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.
Done... Any reason that it isn't executable (chmod +x)?
NeilBrown
-
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]
