From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265619AbUBGAzp (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:55:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265657AbUBGAzp (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:55:45 -0500 Received: from almesberger.net ([63.105.73.238]:39692 "EHLO host.almesberger.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265619AbUBGAzn (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:55:43 -0500 Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:55:38 -0300 From: Werner Almesberger To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: VFS locking: f_pos thread-safe ? Message-ID: <20040206215538.F18820@almesberger.net> References: <20040206041223.A18820@almesberger.net> <20040206183746.GR4902@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <20040206170917.E18820@almesberger.net> <200402062056.i16KuVS6020404@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200402062056.i16KuVS6020404@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>; from Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu on Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 03:56:31PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > Well... it's the sort of problem that's very Schrodenger unless you have > another thread/process observing. In a way :-) What I meant was that the section on read() is worded carefully to avoid making such assurances, but then we find such a broad statement at the end of a section discussing specifically threads (and not even concurrency in general, and after pointing out that threads are optional). - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/