Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> 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.