Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ }
+
+ offset += ret;
+ retval += ret;
+ len -= ret;
+ index += offset >> HPAGE_SHIFT;
+ offset &= ~HPAGE_MASK;
+
+ page_cache_release(page);
+ if (ret == nr && len)
+ continue;
+ goto out;
+ }
+out:
+ return retval;
+}
This code doesn't have all the ghastly tricks which we deploy to handle
concurrent truncate.
Do I need to ? Baaahh!! I don't want to deal with them.
Nick, can you think of any serious consequences of a read/truncate race in
there? I can't..
As it doesn't allow writes, then I _think_ it should be OK. If you
ever did want to add write(2) support, then you would have transient
zeroes problems.
But why not just hold i_mutex around the whole thing just to be safe?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/
