Re: [2.6.26 PATCH, RESEND]: fs_stack/eCryptfs: fsstack_copy_* updates

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Erez Zadok
Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 4:44 pm

In message <20080501122136.bc2215c9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton writes:

Sure, I can implement it and submit a patch.  But I've got two questions
first:

1. i_size_read has a tri-state behaviour:

#if BITS_PER_LONG==32 && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
	// play with seqcount
#elif BITS_PER_LONG==32 && defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT)
	// wrap in preempt_disable/enable
#else
	// just return value
#endif

Shouldn't the same be done for i_blocks, with matching i_blocks_read(),
i_blocks_write(), and adding an inode->i_blocks_seqcount field?


2. I've rewritten your suggested code a bit to reduce stack use.  Modulo
   having 32-bit spin_lock/unlock variants, do you see any problem with this
   code below?  My testing of it so far on 32/64-bit SMP/UMP have all
   passed.

void fsstack_copy_inode_size(struct inode *dst, struct inode *src)
{
#if BITS_PER_LONG == 32
	blkcnt_t i_blocks;

	spin_lock(&src->i_lock);
	i_blocks = src->i_blocks;
	spin_unlock(&src->i_lock);
	spin_lock(&dst->i_lock);
	dst->i_blocks = i_blocks;
	spin_unlock(&dst->i_lock);
#else
	dst->i_blocks = src->i_blocks;
#endif
	i_size_write(dst, i_size_read(src));
}

Thanks,
Erez.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [2.6.26 PATCH, RESEND]: fs_stack/eCryptfs: fsstack_cop ..., Erez Zadok, (Thu May 1, 4:44 pm)