-- Andrew E. Mileski mailto:aem@ott.hookup.net Linux Plug-and-Play Kernel Project http://www.redhat.com/linux-info/pnp/ XFree86 Matrox Team http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~ajv/xf86-matrox.html
> > After exhaustive testing, and the loss of several hundred MB of data, > > I can assure everyone that the FAT race fix in v2.1.14 doesn't work :-( > > (this also affects VFAT of course) > > > > To review for anxious readers, three different solutions have been > > posted on linux-kernel for this problem: > > #1 by Benjamin LaHaise - see linux-kernel-digest #635 > > #2 by Stephen Tweedie - see linux-kernel-digest #636 > > #3 by Stephen Tweedie - see linux-kernel-digest #638 > > Solution #2 seems to be incorporated into v2.1.14 now. > > > > I'll try #3 now and report back after wringing it out a while. > > Hmmm... I haven't seen #3, but how about the patch below (untested, > against 2.1.14). I investigated the msdos/vfat code a bit more, and > depend/linked only seem to be used when renaming across directories > (explains why most tests don't show the problem). > > > --- linux/fs/fat/inode.c.orig Mon Dec 9 12:43:05 1996 > +++ linux/fs/fat/inode.c Mon Dec 9 12:44:20 1996 > @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ > struct inode *depend, *linked; > struct super_block *sb; > > + lock_inode(inode); > depend = MSDOS_I(inode)->i_depend; > linked = MSDOS_I(inode)->i_linked; > sb = inode->i_sb; > @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@ > MSDOS_I(inode)->i_linked = NULL; > } > if (MSDOS_I(inode)->i_busy) fat_cache_inval_inode(inode); > + unlock_inode(inode); > return; > } > inode->i_size = 0; > @@ -69,6 +71,7 @@ > iput(linked); > } > done: > + unlock_inode(inode); > clear_inode(inode); > }