On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:20:52 +0300 Dmitriy Monakhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > XFS (at least) can call generic_file_direct_write() with i_mutex not held. > > And vmtruncate() expects i_mutex to be held. > > > > I guess a suitable solution would be to push this problem back up to the > > callers: let them decide whether to run vmtruncate() and if so, to ensure > > that i_mutex is held. > > > > The existence of generic_file_aio_write_nolock() makes that rather messy > > though. > This means we may call generic_file_aio_write_nolock() without i_mutex, right? > but call trace is : > generic_file_aio_write_nolock() > ->generic_file_buffered_write() /* i_mutex not held here */ > but according to filemaps locking rules: mm/filemap.c:77 > .. > * ->i_mutex (generic_file_buffered_write) > * ->mmap_sem (fault_in_pages_readable->do_page_fault) > .. > I'm confused a litle bit, where is the truth? xfs_write() calls generic_file_direct_write() without taking i_mutex for O_DIRECT writes. - 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/
