[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegto3K+G3wZ-atebMW_3ZwZ5fiA3r2F14DwTXwuaSu7sww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:03:40 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
"linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] ovl: add infrastructure for intercepting file ops
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com> wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * These should be intercepted, but they are very unlikely to be
>> + * a problem in practice. Leave them alone for now.
>
> It could also be handled in vfs helpers.
> Since these ops all start with establishing that src and dest are on
> the same sb,
> then the cost of copy up of src is the cost of clone_file_range from
> lower to upper,
> so it is probably worth to copy up src and leave those fops alone.
>
>> + */
>> + ofop->fops.copy_file_range = orig->copy_file_range;
>> + ofop->fops.clone_file_range = orig->clone_file_range;
>> + ofop->fops.dedupe_file_range = orig->dedupe_file_range;
Not sure I understand. Why should we copy up src? Copy up is the
problem not the solution.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists