Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

[Nick Piggin]

(sorry if this is a resend... something bad seems to have happened to me)

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