[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <517A84D2.9040500@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:44:50 +0200
From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
CC: Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jan Harkes <jaharkes@...cmu.edu>, coda@...cmu.edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
codalist@...a.cs.cmu.edu, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fsfreeze: added new file_start_write_killable
Hi,
Il 26/04/2013 14:06, Matthew Wilcox ha scritto:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:50:52AM +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>> Replace file_start_write with file_start_write_killable where
>> possible.
>
> I feel like I'm missing context here. Possibly because you only cc'd me
> on patch 2/4. In particular, file_start_write doesn't exist upstream,
> so I'm not sure what it's for. But returning 1 for non-regular files
> looks dodgy:
The patch series is based on -next due to several changes done by Al
about fsfreeze. file_start_write_killable returns 1 because it's mainly
a wrapper of __st_start_write. __sb_start_write returns 1 when
everything is ok, 0 when the lock can't be gotten (we are using the
trylock version) and _now_ a value < 0 when something happens (i.e. -EINTR).
>
>> +static inline int file_start_write_killable(struct file *file)
>> +{
>> + if (!S_ISREG(file_inode(file)->i_mode))
>> + return 1;
>> + return sb_start_write_killable(file_inode(file)->i_sb);
>> +}
>
>> +++ b/fs/aio.c
>> @@ -1103,8 +1103,11 @@ static ssize_t aio_rw_vect_retry(struct kiocb *iocb, int rw, aio_rw_op *rw_op)
>> if (iocb->ki_pos < 0)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> - if (rw == WRITE)
>> - file_start_write(file);
>> + if (rw == WRITE) {
>> + ret = file_start_write_killable(file);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> do {
>
> So ... it's OK to do this write to pipes/directories/devices/... ? Or is
> that check always taken care of elsewhere? If so, why do we need this
> check? I'm confused. None of the callers check for the 'ret == 1' case,
> so I'm sure there's something wrong here, I just can't tell what it is.
>
See above.
>> +++ b/fs/read_write.c
>> @@ -438,17 +438,19 @@ ssize_t vfs_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf, size_t count, loff_
>> ret = rw_verify_area(WRITE, file, pos, count);
>> if (ret >= 0) {
>> count = ret;
>> - file_start_write(file);
>> - if (file->f_op->write)
>> - ret = file->f_op->write(file, buf, count, pos);
>> - else
>> - ret = do_sync_write(file, buf, count, pos);
>> + ret = file_start_write_killable(file);
>> if (ret > 0) {
>> - fsnotify_modify(file);
>> - add_wchar(current, ret);
>> + if (file->f_op->write)
>> + ret = file->f_op->write(file, buf, count, pos);
>> + else
>> + ret = do_sync_write(file, buf, count, pos);
>> + if (ret > 0) {
>> + fsnotify_modify(file);
>> + add_wchar(current, ret);
>> + }
>> + inc_syscw(current);
>> + file_end_write(file);
>> }
>> - inc_syscw(current);
>> - file_end_write(file);
>> }
>>
>> return ret;
>
> I don't like it that you've increased the indentation here. Better to do
> a preliminary patch which just converts to our normal style with gotos. ie:
>
Ok, I can change the style here, no problem.
Marco
--
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