Re: page_mkwrite caller is racy?

[Mark Fasheh]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 12:14:24PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> This is another discussion, but do we want the page locked here? Or
> are the filesystems happy to exclude truncate themselves?

No page lock please. Generally, Ocfs2 wants to order cluster locks outside
of page locks. Also, the sparse b-tree support I'm working on right now will
need to be able to allocate in ->page_mkwrite() which would become very
nasty if we came in with the page lock - aside from the additional cluster
locks taken, ocfs2 will want to zero some adjacent pages (because we support
atomic allocation up to 1 meg).

Thanks,
	--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh
Senior Software Developer, Oracle
mark.fasheh@xxxxxxxxxx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/