lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Enhanced file stat system call
From
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 04:45:45PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > (2) Lightweight stat (AT_STATX_DONT_SYNC): Ask for just those details of
> > > interest, and allow a network fs to approximate anything not of
> > > interest, without going to the server.
> > >
> > > (3) Heavyweight stat (AT_STATX_FORCE_SYNC): Force a network fs to flush
> > > buffers and go to the server, even if it thinks its cached attributes
> > > are up to date.
> >
> > That seems an odd way to do it. Wouldn't it be cleaner and more flexible
> > to give a timestamp of the oldest time you consider acceptable (and
> > obviously passing 0 indicates whatever you have)
>
> Perhaps, though adding 6-argument syscalls is apparently frowned upon.
>
> > > Note that no lstat() equivalent is required as that can be implemented
> > > through statx() with atflag == 0. There is also no fstat() equivalent as
> > > that can be implemented through statx() with filename == NULL and the
> > > relevant fd passed as dfd.
> >
> > and dfd + a name gives you fstatat() ?
>
> Yes.
>
> > The cover note could be clearer on this.
>
> Fixed.
>
> > Should the fields really be split the way they are for times rather than
> > a struct for each one so you can write code generically to handle one of
> > those rather than having to have a 4 way switch statement all the time.
>
> It depends. Doing so leaves 16 bytes of hole in the structure. I could
> ameliorate the wastage by using a union to overlay useful fields in the gaps,
> but that's pretty icky and might be compiler dependent.
>
> > Another attribute that would be nice (but migt need some trivial device
> > layer tweaking) would be STATX_ATTR_VOLATILE for filesystems that will
> > probably evaporate on a reboot. That's useful information for tools like
> > installers and also for sanity checking things like backup paths.
>
> There's a FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY that I could map for windows filesystems
> that could be used with this.
>
> > Remote needs to have clear semantics: is ext4fs over nbd 'remote' for
> > example ?
>
> Hmmm... Interesting question. Probably should. But you could be insane and
> RAID an nbd and a local disk. Further, does NFS over a loopback device to
> nfsd on the same machine qualify as root? What if that's exposing a local fs
> on NBD? Perhaps I should drop 'REMOTE' for now. It sounds like something
> that a GUI filemanager might find interesting, though.

Sorry, I haven't been paying attention, just popping up for this, but:
"shared" might be a more useful term than "remote".

A filesystem that may be mounted from more than one system is "shared".
Caching performance and semantics of such a filesystem are more
complicated since the filesystem may change out from under us. This is
what makes e.g. the lightweight/heavyweight stat difference more
interesting in the shared case.

The filesystem should be able to make that shared/unshared distinction
without knowledge of the storage it's sitting on top of.

Answering your questions by that criterion:

- ext4/nbd: not shared
- nfs/lo: shared

But, it's fine with me to drop any features for now as long as we can
always add them later.

--b.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-17 21:00    [W:0.121 / U:0.816 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site