From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:04:03 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: Race between vmtruncate and mapped areas? Message-ID: <20030513210403.GT8978@holomorphy.com> References: <154080000.1052858685@baldur.austin.ibm.com> <3EC15C6D.1040403@kolumbus.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EC15C6D.1040403@kolumbus.fi> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mika Penttil? Cc: Dave McCracken , Linux Memory Management , Linux Kernel List-ID: On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 11:58:21PM +0300, Mika Penttil? wrote: > Isn't that what inode->i_sem is supposed to protect...? > --Mika It's already called under inode->i_sem. The trouble is that it's not the ->i_sem but the ->page_lock that's taken by those it's racing against. -- wli -- 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/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org