On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> This will break NWFS and require I put back in all the locks Al Viro
> told me to remove.
This will also break _every_ writable filesystem in tree and outside. Case
closed. Author of suggestion took it back about a week ago, IIRC.
BTW, Linus,
This will break NWFS and require I put back in all the locks Al Viro
told me to remove.
Jeff
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eric PAIRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >In open.c:do_truncate(), the call to notify_change() is protected by
> >the inode->i_sem,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric PAIRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>In open.c:do_truncate(), the call to notify_change() is protected by
>the inode->i_sem, which seems to me useless, and thus can be removed.
And exactly how do you now protect against the race of another process
doing a
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > ?
> > I'm afraid that I've lost you here - what do you mean?
>
> loop does a bmap() and then submits block IO. You don't want
> truncate() to revoke blocks in between the bmap and the IO completion.
It used to do bmap(), but unless somebody
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 06:45:43AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > > ?
> > > I'm afraid that I've lost you here - what do you mean?
> >
> > loop does a bmap() and then submits block IO. You don't want
> > truncate() to revoke blocks in
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 08:31:43AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Also truncate inode locking is needed to get a halfway reliable loopback
> > device (unlike the current one)
>
> ?
> I'm afraid that I've lost you here - what do you mean?
loop does a bmap() and then submits block IO.
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 08:31:43AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
Also truncate inode locking is needed to get a halfway reliable loopback
device (unlike the current one)
?
I'm afraid that I've lost you here - what do you mean?
loop does a bmap() and then submits block IO. You don't
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 06:45:43AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
?
I'm afraid that I've lost you here - what do you mean?
loop does a bmap() and then submits block IO. You don't want
truncate() to revoke blocks in between the bmap
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
This will break NWFS and require I put back in all the locks Al Viro
told me to remove.
This will also break _every_ writable filesystem in tree and outside. Case
closed. Author of suggestion took it back about a week ago, IIRC.
BTW, Linus,
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 02:00:38PM +0200, Eric PAIRE wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In open.c:do_truncate(), the call to notify_change() is protected by
> > the inode->i_sem, which seems to me useless, and thus can be removed.
Look better. "thus can be
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 02:00:38PM +0200, Eric PAIRE wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In open.c:do_truncate(), the call to notify_change() is protected by
> the inode->i_sem, which seems to me useless, and thus can be removed.
> BTW, I also removed the useless inode pointer and error local variables.
Please
Hi,
In open.c:do_truncate(), the call to notify_change() is protected by
the inode->i_sem, which seems to me useless, and thus can be removed.
BTW, I also removed the useless inode pointer and error local variables.
Comments ?
-Eric
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Eric PAIRE
Web :
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 02:00:38PM +0200, Eric PAIRE wrote:
Hi,
In open.c:do_truncate(), the call to notify_change() is protected by
the inode-i_sem, which seems to me useless, and thus can be removed.
BTW, I also removed the useless inode pointer and error local variables.
Please don't.
13 matches
Mail list logo
