Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 01:38:25 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
       Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Fix up the NFS mmap code
Message-ID: <20100109013825.GD30528@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <1262913974.2659.101.camel@localhost> <20100109005624.7473.33215.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001081709470.7821@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001081709470.7821@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1082
Lines: 25

On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 05:17:14PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >
> > How about something like the following. I chose to wrap the call to
> > do_mmap_pgoff() instead of making a special ->pre_mmap(), since that
> > seems more consistent with the way we handle ->read() and ->write().
> 
> I still don't think that you can ever do mmap _and_ readdir on the same 
> inode, so there's something wrong with the lockdep annotations.

readdir() is certainly a red herring.  write(), OTOH, is quite real.
And there we do i_mutex followed by pagefaults.

I *REALLY* dislike Trond's solution, though.

Could we please get a sane expalanation of the reasons why nfs mmap
wants i_mutex in the first place?  Before we add yet another hook
from hell and complicate already overcomplicated area...
--
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/