From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 02:02:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 02:02:46 -0400 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:27842 "EHLO mtvmime02.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 02:02:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 07:09:24 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@localhost.localdomain To: Andrew Morton cc: lkml , Subject: Re: [patch] remove BKL from inode_setattr In-Reply-To: <3DAA4FD6.A18DAFE6@digeo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Since April 05 of this year we've been holding the BKL across the > vmtruncate call out of inode_setattr(). By accident it seems. But until then, the lock_kernel was one level up in notify_change(). > This does not affect unlink(). It affects ftruncate() and open(O_TRUNC). And the patch you give affects chown, chgrp, chmod, utime also: removing a synchronization point if nothing more. Could that matter? > Given that the drop_inode() path does not take the BKL, I would > suggest that it is safe to assume that the various filesystem's > truncate code is safe without this additional VFS-level lock_kernel(), > and that it can be simply removed. Isn't doing it when the references have gone rather easier/safer than when they remain? I'm not sure your argument holds. > Sound sane? Of course I want you to be right! But I don't see that you've made a strong enough case yet. Please show I'm being stupid, someone. Hugh