Hi Stephen,
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> If the locking is for a completely different reason, then a
> different semaphore is quite appropriate. In this case you're
> trying to lock the shm internal info structures, which is quite
> different from the sort of inode locking which the VFS tries to do
> itself, so the new semaphore appears quite clean --- and definitely
> needed.
It's not the addition to the inode semaphore I do care about, but the
addition to the spin lock which protects also the shmem internals. But
you are probably right: It only protects the onthefly pages between
page cache and swap cache.
Greetings
Christoph
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 07 2001 - 21:00:13 EST