[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200807020000.m62009ug014713@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 20:00:09 -0400
From: Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@...ibm.com>,
Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
hooanon05@...oo.co.jp, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsstack: fsstack_copy_inode_size locking
In message <20080701070350.GA22914@...radead.org>, Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 04:49:01PM -0500, Michael Halcrow wrote:
> > eCryptfs depends on the results of i_size_read() on the lower inode
> > when it needs to interpolate the filesize when the metadata is stored
> > in the lower file's xattr region.
>
> please use vfs_getattr to get the size in thst case.
So, Christoph, is using vfs_getattr() the preferred choice for stackable
file systems in general to get the lower inode size?
If so, the Hugh's fsstack_copy_inode_size patch will have to be updated: and
we'll probably have to change the names of the src/dst parameters to
lower/upper, possibly watch out for whether "src" was the lower or upper
inode, and be careful about locking semantics when calling vfs_getattr.
Who'd have thought that a concept as simple as
dst->i_size = src->i_size
could turn out to be so hairy... 1/2 a :-)
Thanks,
Erez.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists