[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pr101f5d.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 12:07:02 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: hch@...radead.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, adilger@....com,
corbet@....net, serue@...ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
sfrench@...ibm.com, philippe.deniel@....FR,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V7 4/9] vfs: Add open by file handle support
On Thu, 13 May 2010 16:09:55 +1000, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 09:44:22AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 May 2010 21:20:39 +0530
> > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > + filp->f_flags |= O_NOATIME;
> > > + filp->f_mode |= FMODE_NOCMTIME;
> > > + }
> >
> > I think you need a comment here explaining the rational for these setting.
>
> If you've never seen how applications use the XFS handle interface
> in conjunction with other XFS functionality, then I guess if would
> seem like bad voodoo.
>
> > Why is O_NOATIME important IFREG but not for IFDIR?
>
> No application has ever required directory access or modification
> via the handle interface to be invisible to the rest of the system.
>
> > Why is it not sufficient to honour O_NOATIME that is passed in.
>
> Because the XFS handle library is cross platform and predates
> O_NOATIME on linux. Hence the library it has never set that flag and
> always relied on the kernel implementation of the API to ensure
> atime was never updated on fds derived from handles..
>
> > How can you ever justify setting FMODE_NOCMTIME ?
>
> Quite easily. ;)
>
> The XFS handle interface was designed specifically to allow
> applications to execute silent/invisible movement of data in, out
> and around the filesystem without leaving user visible traces in
> file metadata. This enables backup or filesysetm utilities that
> operate on active filesystems need to be able to access or modify
> inodes and data without affecting running applications. It's a
> feature of the handle interface, and used by xfs_dump, xfs_fsr,
> SGI's HSM, etc to do stuff that isn't otherwise possible.
>
> FWIW, if you are curious, here's the initial commit of the XFS
> handle code into Irix tree from 3 Sep 1994, showing that the initial
> XFS open_by_handle() implementation sets the FINVIS flag to trigger
> invisible IO semantics:
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=archive/xfs-import.git;a=commitdiff;h=575b66fae833429a51fcadb204d45521c2dfc26f
Thanks for sharing this. I haven't looked at the details you mentioned here.
>
> > I guess you are just copying from xfs code, but it still needs justification.
>
> "They are intended for use by a limited set of system
> utilities such as backup programs."
>
> - open_by_handle(3) man page
>
Should we retain all the above behaviour in the new syscall ?. Or just
do what a normal open(2) call does ?
-aneesh
--
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