On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 10:11:09PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 03:55:19PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 03:34:00PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > > > Same scenario, but with read-in-progress started before we do getblk(). BTW,
> > >
> > > how can the read in progress see a branch that we didn't spliced yet? We
> >
> > fd = open("/dev/hda1", O_RDONLY);
> > read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
>
> You misunderstood the context of what I said, I perfectly know the race
> you are talking about, I was answering Linus's question "the
> wait_on_buffer isn't even necessary to protect ext2 against ext2". You
> are talking about the other race that is "ext2" against "block_dev", and
> I obviously agree on that one since the first place as I immediatly
> answered you "correct".
>
> What I'm saying above is that even without the wait_on_buffer ext2 can
^^^ "cannot" of course
> screwup itself because the splice happens after the buffer are just all
> uptodate so any "reader" (I mean any reader through ext2 not through
> block_dev) will never try to do a bread on that blocks before they're
> just zeroed and uptodate.
>
> Andrea
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 21:00:16 EST