On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 15:38 +0300, Anton Salikhmetov wrote:
> 2008/1/12, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 10:36 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 03:44 +0300, Anton Salikhmetov wrote:
> > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Update the ctime and mtime stamps after checking if they are to be
> > > > updated.
> > > > + */
> > > > +void mapped_file_update_time(struct file *file)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (test_and_clear_bit(AS_MCTIME, &file->f_mapping->flags)) {
> > > > + get_file(file);
> > > > + file_update_time(file);
> > > > + fput(file);
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > >
> > > I don't think you need the get/put file stuff here, because
> >
> > BTW, the reason for me noticing this is that if it would be needed there
> > is a race condition right there, who is to say that the file pointer
> > you're deref'ing in your test condition isn't a dead one already.
>
> So, in your opinion, is it at all needed here to play with the file reference
> counter? May I drop the get_file() and fput() calls from the
> sys_msync() function?
No, the ones in sys_msync() around calling do_fsync() are most
definately needed because we release mmap_sem there.
What I'm saying is that you can remove the get_file()/fput() calls from
your new mapped_file_update_time() function.
--
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/
