From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964989AbXGUBXw (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:23:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S935962AbXGUBXm (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:23:42 -0400 Received: from smtp102.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.212]:46197 "HELO smtp102.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1764569AbXGUBXl (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:23:41 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=FHx0CfzfxUlIFGsZqEm3qglY18EyyVGhmVnlDozfgeVc2yzQpOmH1KrZftw91nEB6I4uMmM4oiYEbyfV05FKCkK8Z2qS0xN2I6Kk2QAhBKZryNYRWY9R9rwZNQ5d0RKLlK/Rceg4cQSt2/7MDLumitdINnpaNHs9p/gt+uBqrZs= ; X-YMail-OSG: 1rXHv.kVM1l7mW0MWNyFkSQf8OobSyYCFNjj54HAZ_yP8u9UeSRi5x3NIjAiCxvCSxW82KP7Ag-- Message-ID: <46A03C70.1080603@yahoo.com.au> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:39:12 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: Badari Pulavarty , Bill Irwin , nacc@us.ibm.com, lkml , linux-mm Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support References: <1184376214.15968.9.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> <20070718221950.35bbdb76.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1184860309.18188.90.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> <20070719095850.6e09b0e8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070719095850.6e09b0e8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty wrote: >>>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 I'm not completely sure.. we've had a lot of (and still have some known and probably unknown) bugs just in that single generic_mapping_read function, most of which are due to our rabid aversion to doing any locking whatsoever there. So why not just hold i_mutex around the whole thing to be safe? -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.