From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265113AbUBEDiR (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2004 22:38:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265993AbUBEDiR (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2004 22:38:17 -0500 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.102]:39097 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265113AbUBEDiD (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2004 22:38:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:13:20 +0530 From: Suparna Bhattacharya To: Andrew Morton Cc: Janet Morgan , daniel@osdl.org, pbadari@us.ibm.com, linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.2-rc3-mm1] DIO read race fix Message-ID: <20040205034320.GB3319@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: suparna@in.ibm.com References: <1071190292.1937.13.camel@ibm-c.pdx.osdl.net> <20031230045334.GA3484@in.ibm.com> <1072830557.712.49.camel@ibm-c.pdx.osdl.net> <20031231060956.GB3285@in.ibm.com> <1073606144.1831.9.camel@ibm-c.pdx.osdl.net> <20040109035510.GA3279@in.ibm.com> <1075945198.7182.46.camel@ibm-c.pdx.osdl.net> <20040204180754.28801410.akpm@osdl.org> <4021B07E.8030700@us.ibm.com> <20040204191921.62122c15.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040204191921.62122c15.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 07:19:21PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Janet Morgan wrote: > > > > >Daniel McNeil wrote: > > > > > > > > >>I have found (finally) the problem causing DIO reads racing with > > >>buffered writes to see uninitialized data on ext3 file systems > > >>(which is what I have been testing on). > > >> > > >> > > > > > >What kernel? If -mm, is this the only remaining buffered-vs-direct > > >problem? > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was consensus on two other patches along the way: > > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=107286971311559&w=2 > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-aio&m=107291089712224&w=2 > > Yes, I think those are needed but this thing has been dragging on for so > long it has become a little unclear. This was the main reason why I backed > off the fs-aio patches. > > Daniel, could you please work out whether we actually need those patches > and if so, prep them for us? Presumably if ext2 passes all testing without > those patches, we do not need them. I think we agreed from a logical standpoint that those patches are correct and needed, didn't we ? Whether or not we encounter those races in our testing is to a certain extent a matter of chance. I wouldn't use passing of all tests for ext2 as a proof that they aren't needed. It just tells us that they may be less likely. Regards Suparna -- Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@in.ibm.com) Linux Technology Center IBM Software Lab, India