Re: [PATCH 3/7] btrfs: use i_size_read() instead of open code

2017-11-15 Thread David Sterba
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:44:59AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 11/07/2017 12:52 AM, David Sterba wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 04:36:14PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > >> As i_size_read() takes care of 32bit smp or preempt cases as well. > > > > Can bdev->bd_inode->i_size change so that

Re: [PATCH 3/7] btrfs: use i_size_read() instead of open code

2017-11-06 Thread Anand Jain
On 11/07/2017 12:52 AM, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 04:36:14PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: As i_size_read() takes care of 32bit smp or preempt cases as well. Can bdev->bd_inode->i_size change so that we need to use the i_size_read()? My answer is 'no'. Hm. Right I was looking

Re: [PATCH 3/7] btrfs: use i_size_read() instead of open code

2017-11-06 Thread David Sterba
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 04:36:14PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > As i_size_read() takes care of 32bit smp or preempt cases as well. Can bdev->bd_inode->i_size change so that we need to use the i_size_read()? My answer is 'no'. You haven't provided any reasoning why it should be otherwise. -- To unsub

[PATCH 3/7] btrfs: use i_size_read() instead of open code

2017-11-06 Thread Anand Jain
As i_size_read() takes care of 32bit smp or preempt cases as well. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain --- fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c index b0465020972a..86e7f5abd740 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c +++ b/fs/bt