Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933640AbWLKOVr (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:21:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933840AbWLKOVr (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:21:47 -0500 Received: from smtp107.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.217]:36640 "HELO smtp107.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S933640AbWLKOVq (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:21:46 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=n8HqccuExJKe/ov4zrXQHtIWQDgpJdtaGSICmBMuGDi4v4JEnT/BZNKH68PdzentGrtSgWy6pIopdJFYqKlgUS0DgzbnSP4EFXU/H1KYG5tSxV0NVBS/tTI703ZMhyfgq33aDqdNaRdVPDg7Bdl/kwcG5j+BhA10xu3mK7pr0vU= ; X-YMail-OSG: ATLJgH4VM1ljwbj03_jMWnvpTFx41c7Cd_POCcgPkT9ZJxixZcDIhEDwQ4cGaraOOPgaXxbkw0iRshGX4fgTIewAYUnqtgMNlKUO6M2GXtQ1Wa.3hl6d3DfSvqa58TeXT1gqINdlCBIihjc- Message-ID: <457D6944.4010703@yahoo.com.au> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:20:52 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Fasheh CC: Linux Memory Management , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel , OGAWA Hirofumi , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes) References: <45751712.80301@yahoo.com.au> <20061207195518.GG4497@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <4578DBCA.30604@yahoo.com.au> <20061208234852.GI4497@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <457D20AE.6040107@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <457D20AE.6040107@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1121 Lines: 29 Nick Piggin wrote: > Mark Fasheh wrote: >> If we make the change I described above (looking for BH_New buffers >> outside >> the range passed), then zero length or partial shouldn't matter, but zero >> length instead of partial would be nicer imho just for the sake of >> reducing >> the total number of cases down to the entire range or zero length. > > > We don't want to do zero length, because we might make the theoretical > livelock much easier to hit (eg. in the case of many small iovecs). But > yes we can restrict ourselves to zero-length or full-length. On second thoughts, I think I'm wrong about that. Consider the last page of a file, which is uptodate. A full length commit, which extends the file, will expose transient zeroes if the usercopy fails. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/