[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180209123342.11b17062@bahia.lan>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 12:33:42 +0100
From: Greg Kurz <groug@...d.org>
To: jiangyiwen <jiangyiwen@...wei.com>
Cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
<v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>, <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
<aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ron Minnich <rminnich@...dia.gov>,
Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
Veaceslav Falico <veaceslav.falico@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [RFC] we should solve create-unlink-getattr
idiom
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 15:10:46 +0800
jiangyiwen <jiangyiwen@...wei.com> wrote:
> Hi Eric and Greg,
>
> I encountered the similar problem with create-unlink-getattr idiom.
> I use the testcase that create-unlink-setattr idiom, and I see the
> bug is reported at https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1336794.
> Then I also see you already fix the issue and push the patch to upstream.
> https://github.com/ericvh/linux/commit/eaf70223eac094291169f5a6de580351890162a2
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/626194/
>
> Unfortunately, the two patches are not merged into master, I don't know
> the reason, so I suggest if the patche can be merged into master, and
> it will solve the create-unlink-getattr idiom.
>
I had tried to go a bit further and address the general issue of f*() syscalls
versus unlinked files:
QEMU:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-06/msg07586.html
Linux 9p driver:
https://sourceforge.net/p/v9fs/mailman/message/35175775/
I remember that some issues were then reported during review of the
linux patches, and I never got bandwidth to investigate further...
But if you'd like to resurrect these threads, please do. :)
> Thanks,
> Yiwen
>
Cheers,
--
Greg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists