Skip to content

RFC msync: another attempt to fix the ctime/mtime issue

Anton Salikhmetov linux-mm lkml 1 version New

Get series with b4
b4 am 1200011916.19293.91.camel@codedot

Versions newest first

  1. v1 RFC Latest0 of 2 patches 0 repliesNew

Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet

None of the 2 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.

Reviews trailers per patch

No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.

Read the v1 thread

Cover letter [PATCH 0/2][RFC][BUG] msync: another attempt to fix the ctime/mtime issue

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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>