On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 14:29 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > 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.
I have no plans to add write() support - unless there is real reason for doing so. > > But why not just hold i_mutex around the whole thing just to be safe? Yeah. I can do that, just to be safe for future.. Thanks, Badari - 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/
