Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

From: Nick Piggin
Date: Fri Jul 20 2007 - 15:04:37 EST


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


+ }
+
+ offset += ret;
+ retval += ret;
+ len -= ret;
+ index += offset >> HPAGE_SHIFT;
+ offset &= ~HPAGE_MASK;
+
+ page_cache_release(page);
+ if (ret == nr && len)
+ continue;
+ goto out;
+ }
+out:
+ return retval;
+}

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 why not just hold i_mutex around the whole thing just 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/