From: Anton Salikhmetov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I would like to propose my second solution for the bug #2645 from the kernel bug tracker:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2645 You may find the relevant background information as well as an extensive discussion of my previous solution using the following link: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/9/387 The short change list: 1) taking into account the intervening sync() call which Peter Staubach has mentioned (http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/9/267); 2) splitting the solution into two patches: code cleanup and functional changes; 3) updating ctime and mtime in do_fsync(), due to that the file time stamps get updated even without any explicit call to msync(). Please note that the second patch (functional changes) should be applied on top of the first one (code cleanup). Also I changed my unit test due to Peter's remark: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/9/267 The new version of the unit test can be found here: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=14398&action=view No regression was found when I ran the test cases for the msync() system call from the LTP test suite (msync01 - msync05, mmapstress01, mmapstress09, and mmapstress10). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/