From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265535AbUBFUJY (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:09:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265471AbUBFUJY (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:09:24 -0500 Received: from almesberger.net ([63.105.73.238]:34571 "EHLO host.almesberger.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265535AbUBFUJX (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:09:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:09:17 -0300 From: Werner Almesberger To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: VFS locking: f_pos thread-safe ? Message-ID: <20040206170917.E18820@almesberger.net> References: <20040206041223.A18820@almesberger.net> <20040206183746.GR4902@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040206183746.GR4902@ca-server1.us.oracle.com>; from Joel.Becker@oracle.com on Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 10:37:46AM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Joel Becker wrote: > This reads: "all of the specified effects of the other call, > or none of them." [...] > Of course, that doesn't change the possible race updating > f_pos at the end of each thread's call. Hmm, "all, but the f_pos read-modify-write" sounds more like how an insurance company would define "all" :-) What's puzzling here is that the standard would introduce such an important concept in the discussion of threads. - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/