From: "=?EUC-KR?B?yKu9xSBzaGluIGhvbmc=?=" Subject: a question for i_inode's i_size in ext2 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:21:44 +0900 Message-ID: <2014bcab0809190021qbca7bect601c891c2db197cf@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.225]:47017 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750709AbYISHVp (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:21:45 -0400 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so308520rvb.1 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Dear ext2 maintainers I have a question of inode's i_size. I found that it is hard to find any consistent synchronization mechanism that protects inode's i_size field. Is there any lock or synchronization mechanism that consistently protects i_size fields of inode objects to avoid data race? In inode's definition in /include/linux/fs.h, there is comment that i_lock protects i_size but it is not clear. Sincerely Shin Hong