From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:52:02 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hugetlb: synchronize alloc with page cache insert Message-ID: <20060111225202.GE9091@holomorphy.com> References: <1136920951.23288.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1137016960.9672.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1137018263.9672.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1137018263.9672.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Adam Litke Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 04:24:23PM -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > My only concern is if I am using the correct lock for the job here. ->i_lock looks rather fishy. It may have been necessary when ->i_blocks was used for nefarious purposes, but without ->i_blocks fiddling, it's not needed unless I somehow missed the addition of some custom fields to hugetlbfs inodes and their modifications by any of these functions. -- 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: email@kvack.org