Message-ID: <4A66DA2E.90601@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:21:50 +0800
From: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090319)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
       viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Patch] pipe: use file_update_time() when hold i_mutex
References: <20090706053745.6338.50777.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain>	 <20090720141150.e9d081ca.akpm@linux-foundation.org>	 <4A65934B.9050904@redhat.com> <1248174580.28516.595.camel@tucsk>
In-Reply-To: <1248174580.28516.595.camel@tucsk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 867
Lines: 35

Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 18:07 +0800, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>   
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 01:35:30 -0400
>>> Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> file_update_time() should be called with i_mutex held,
>>>> move it before mutex_unlock().
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Why do you believe that file_update_time() needs i_mutex?
>>>   
>>>       
>> file_update_time() modifies inode, no? :)
>>     
>
> So does touch_atime(), yet neither needs i_mutex.
>   
Yes?

Then how the inode is protected when file_update_time() modifies
it?

Thanks.

--
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/