From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:50:06 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: Linus rollup Message-ID: <20030130175006.GO18538@dualathlon.random> References: <20030129022617.62800a6e.akpm@digeo.com> <1043879752.10150.387.camel@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> <20030129151206.269290ff.akpm@digeo.com> <20030129.163034.130834202.davem@redhat.com> <20030129172743.1e11d566.akpm@digeo.com> <20030130013522.GP1237@dualathlon.random> <20030129180054.03ac0d48.akpm@digeo.com> <20030130015427.GU1237@dualathlon.random> <1043948226.10150.587.camel@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1043948226.10150.587.camel@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Andrew Morton , David Miller , rmk@arm.linux.org.uk, ak@muc.de, davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com, anton@samba.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, rth@twiddle.net List-ID: On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:37:06AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > you certainly mean wmb() not rmb(), right? If yes, then yes. > > > > I actually didn't notice the write_begin/end, not sure who could need > > them, I would suggest removing them, rather than to revert the mb() > > there too. > > The write_begin/end was suggested by Andrew as a simplification for use > when using this to update values already write-locked by other means. > > One possible usage was to fix the race issues with non-atomic update > of 64 bit i_size. It looks overdesign to me, you don't need the spinlock for that, the i_sem is explicit too. The generalized abstraction is worthwhile when you have to use it 99% of the time, the missing 1% doesn't need to be abstracted, forward porting my implementation is the best for such specific case IMHO. Andrea -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/