From: "George Spelvin" <linux@horizon.com>
To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Cc: linux@horizon.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: Update of file offset on write() etc. is non-atomic with I/O
Date: 3 Mar 2014 16:03:59 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140303210359.26624.qmail@science.horizon.com> (raw)
> struct fd {
> struct file *file;
> - int need_put;
> + unsigned need_put:1, need_pos_unlock:1;
> };
Since we're rounding up to 2*sizeof(struct file *) anyway, is this a case
where wasting space on a couple of char (or bool) flags would generate
better code than a bitfield?
In particular, the code to set need_pos_unlock (which will be executed
each read/write for most files) is messy in the bitfield case.
A byte store is much cleaner.
(If you want to use bits, why not use the two lsbits of the file pointer
for the purpose? That would save a lot of space.)
next reply other threads:[~2014-03-03 21:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-03 21:03 George Spelvin [this message]
2014-03-03 21:26 ` Update of file offset on write() etc. is non-atomic with I/O Al Viro
2014-03-03 21:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-03 22:01 ` Al Viro
2014-03-03 22:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-03 23:28 ` Al Viro
2014-03-03 23:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-03 23:42 ` Al Viro
2014-03-03 23:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-04 0:23 ` Al Viro
2014-03-04 0:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-04 1:05 ` Al Viro
2014-03-04 20:00 ` Al Viro
2014-03-04 21:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-05 0:04 ` Al Viro
2014-03-10 15:55 ` Al Viro
2014-03-03 22:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-03 23:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-03 23:39 ` Al Viro
2014-03-03 23:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-03 23:54 ` Al Viro
2014-03-04 20:11 ` Cedric Blancher
2014-03-04 0:07 ` George Spelvin
2014-05-04 7:04 ` Michael Kerrisk
[not found] <a8df285f-de7f-4a3a-9a19-e0ad07ab3a5c@blur>
2014-02-20 18:15 ` Zuckerman, Boris
2014-02-20 18:29 ` Al Viro
2014-02-21 6:01 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-02-23 1:18 ` Kevin Easton
2014-02-23 7:38 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-02-17 15:41 Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-02-18 13:00 ` Michael Kerrisk
2014-02-20 17:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-03 17:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-03 21:45 ` Al Viro
2014-03-03 21:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-03 22:09 ` Al Viro
2014-03-03 22:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-03 22:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-03 22:10 ` Al Viro
2014-03-03 22:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-03-06 15:03 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-03-07 3:38 ` Yongzhi Pan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140303210359.26624.qmail@science.horizon.com \
--to=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).