Re: [PATCH] ext2/3/4: change i_mutex usage on lseek

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> Is there any reason you couldn't have just changed generic_file_llseek()
> to do this rather than making identical changes to the individual file
> systems.  I would think this optimization would be safe for any file
> system.

Is it safe on 32-bit systems where 64-bit updates are not atomic?

You may say that doing multiple parallel lseek() calls is undefined
behaviour, so it's ok to end up with file position that none of the
individual lseek() calls asked for.

But if it's undefined behaviour, no programs should be doing parallel
lseek() calls on the same open file, so why optimise it at all?

-- Jamie
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux