Thanks a lot Theodore Ts'o ...

 Thanks to all (kernel,ext4 ..etc. )developer for quick debug and
response...


On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 04:33:28PM +0000,
> bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
> >
> > as this is working properly with XFS, so in ext4/ext3...etc also we
> shouldn't
> > require synchronization at the Application level,., FS should take care
> of
> > locking... will we expecting the fix for the same ???
>
> Meetmehiro,
>
> At this point, there seems to be consensus that the kernel should take
> care of the locking, and that this is not something that needs be a
> worry for the application.  Whether this should be done in the file
> system layer or in the mm layer is the current question at hand ---
> since this is a bug that also affects btrfs and other non-XFS file
> systems.
>
> So the question is whether every file system which supports AIO should
> add its own locking, or whether it should be done at the mm layer, and
> at which point the lock in the XFS layer could be removed as no longer
> necessary.
>
> I've added linux-mm and linux-fsdevel to make sure all of the relevant
> kernel developers are aware of this question/issue.
>
> Regards,
>
>                                                 - Ted
>



-- 
thanks & regards
Hiro Lalwani