From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: a question for i_inode's i_size in ext2 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:32:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20080919233203.GA12762@mit.edu> References: <2014bcab0809190021qbca7bect601c891c2db197cf@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: =?utf-8?B?7ZmN7Iug?= shin hong Return-path: Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.org ([69.25.196.31]:53841 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752796AbYISXcJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:32:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2014bcab0809190021qbca7bect601c891c2db197cf@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 04:21:44PM +0900, =ED=99=8D=EC=8B=A0 shin hong = wrote: > Dear ext2 maintainers >=20 > I have a question of inode's i_size. I found that it is hard to fin= d > any consistent synchronization mechanism that protects inode's i_size > field. > Is there any lock or synchronization mechanism that consistently > protects i_size fields of inode objects to avoid data race? > In inode's definition in /include/linux/fs.h, there is comment that > i_lock protects i_size but it is not clear. Yes, there is; the i_size (as well as others) are protected via i_mutex in ext2. Regards, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html