From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:07:26 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch] mm: bug in set_page_dirty_buffers Message-Id: <20061010020726.c2f1a51c.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20061010084931.GB24748@wotan.suse.de> References: <20061009230832.7245814e.akpm@osdl.org> <20061010061958.GA25500@wotan.suse.de> <20061009232714.b52f678d.akpm@osdl.org> <20061010063900.GB25500@wotan.suse.de> <20061010065217.GC25500@wotan.suse.de> <20061010000652.bed6f901.akpm@osdl.org> <20061010072129.GB14557@wotan.suse.de> <20061010010742.50cbe1b1.akpm@osdl.org> <20061010081820.GA24748@wotan.suse.de> <20061010014114.75c424f0.akpm@osdl.org> <20061010084931.GB24748@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Linux Memory Management List , Greg KH List-ID: On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:49:31 +0200 Nick Piggin wrote: > > > but that is a bug in truncate and I have some patches to fix them. > > > > > > But anyone who has done a get_user_pages, AFAIKS, can later run a > > > set_page_dirty on the pages. > > > > Most (all?) callers are (and should be) using set_page_dirty_lock(). > > They don't, and I haven't checked but I doubt it is because they > always have the page locked. I don't understand that. If they're using get_user_pages() then they're probably _not_ locking the page, and they should be using set_page_dirty_lock(). If they _are_ locking the page, and running set_page_dirty() inside that lock_page() then fine. -- 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