From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Dushistov Subject: Re: [PATCH]: ufs: ufs_get_locked_patch race fix Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:30:43 +0400 Message-ID: <20060801073043.GA17186@rain> References: <20060731125702.GA5094@rain> <20060731230251.3b149902.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.mail.ru ([194.67.23.121]:38968 "EHLO mx1.mail.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932554AbWHAHWq (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 03:22:46 -0400 To: Andrew Morton Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060731230251.3b149902.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:02:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:57:02 +0400 > Evgeniy Dushistov wrote: > > Looks good to me. > > Is there any need to be checking ->index? Normally we simply use the > sequence: > > lock_page(page); > if (page->mapping == NULL) > /* truncate got there first */ > > to handle this case. Yes, I made it in analogy with `find_lock_page' and missed fact that if we increment usage counter of page, we have no need to check page->index. Need another patch? -- /Evgeniy