lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RESEND4, PATCH 1/2] fuse: retrieve: cap requested size to negotiated max_write
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:22 PM Kirill Smelkov <kirr@nexedi.com> wrote:
> - FUSE_PRECISE_INVAL_DATA:
>
> --- b/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h
> @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@
> * FUSE_MAX_PAGES: init_out.max_pages contains the max number of req pages
> * FUSE_CACHE_SYMLINKS: cache READLINK responses
> * FUSE_NO_OPENDIR_SUPPORT: kernel supports zero-message opendir
> - * FUSE_PRECISE_INVAL_DATA: filesystem is fully responsible for data cache invalidation
> + * FUSE_PRECISE_INVAL_DATA: filesystem is fully responsible for invalidation
> */
> #define FUSE_ASYNC_READ (1 << 0)
> #define FUSE_POSIX_LOCKS (1 << 1)
>
> the "data cache" in "for data cache invalidation" has particular meaning
> and semantic: the filesystem promises to explicitly invalidate data of

Right; better name: FUSE_EXPLICIT_INVAL_DATA. Will push fixed version.

> Your amendment for FOPEN_STREAM in uapi/linux/fuse.h (see above) also
> suggests that it is better to be more explicit in that file.
>
> --- b/fs/fuse/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c
> @@ -913,13 +913,8 @@
> fc->dont_mask = 1;
> if (arg->flags & FUSE_AUTO_INVAL_DATA)
> fc->auto_inval_data = 1;
> - if (arg->flags & FUSE_PRECISE_INVAL_DATA)
> + else if (arg->flags & FUSE_PRECISE_INVAL_DATA)
> fc->precise_inval_data = 1;
> - if (fc->auto_inval_data && fc->precise_inval_data) {
> - pr_warn("filesystem requested both auto and "
> - "precise cache control - using auto\n");
> - fc->precise_inval_data = 0;
> - }
> if (arg->flags & FUSE_DO_READDIRPLUS) {
> fc->do_readdirplus = 1;
> if (arg->flags & FUSE_READDIRPLUS_AUTO)
>
> Even though it is ok for me personally (I could be careful and use only
> FUSE_PRECISE_INVAL_DATA) I still think usage of both "auto" and "precise"
> invalidation modes deserves a warning. It is only at filesystem init time. What
> is the reason not to print it?

The warning makes no sense. It should either be failure or silent override.

> - "fuse: retrieve: cap requested size to negotiated max_write"
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Smelkov <kirr@nexedi.com>
> Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@google.com>
> Cc: Jakob Unterwurzacher <jakobunt@gmail.com>
> -Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v2.6.36+
>
> what is the reason not to include this patch into stable series?

This doens't fix any bugs out there, but there is a slight chance of
regression (so it might possibly have to be reverted in the future) so
it absolutely makes no sense to backport it to stable.

Thanks,
Miklos

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-24 17:03    [W:0.059 / U:0.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site