[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191122130042.GB8636@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:00:42 -0500
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
Cc: virtio-fs@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dgilbert@...hat.com,
miklos@...redi.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] virtiofs: Support blocking posix locks
(fcntl(F_SETLKW))
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 05:00:20PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
[..]
> > +static int virtio_fs_handle_notify(struct virtio_fs *vfs,
> > + struct virtio_fs_notify *notify)
> > +{
> > + int ret = 0;
> > + struct fuse_out_header *oh = ¬ify->out_hdr;
> > + struct fuse_notify_lock_out *lo;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * For notifications, oh.unique is 0 and oh->error contains code
> > + * for which notification as arrived.
> > + */
> > + switch(oh->error) {
> > + case FUSE_NOTIFY_LOCK:
> > + lo = (struct fuse_notify_lock_out *) ¬ify->outarg;
> > + notify_complete_waiting_req(vfs, lo);
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + printk("virtio-fs: Unexpected notification %d\n", oh->error);
> > + }
> > + return ret;
> > +}
>
> Is this specific to virtio or can be it handled in common code?
This is not specific to virtio_fs. In principle, regular fuse daemon could
implement something similar. Though they might not have to because client
can just block without introducing deadlock possibilities.
Anyway, I will look into moving this code into fuse common.
[..]
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h b/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h
> > index 373cada89815..45f0c4efec8e 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h
> > @@ -481,6 +481,7 @@ enum fuse_notify_code {
> > FUSE_NOTIFY_STORE = 4,
> > FUSE_NOTIFY_RETRIEVE = 5,
> > FUSE_NOTIFY_DELETE = 6,
> > + FUSE_NOTIFY_LOCK = 7,
> > FUSE_NOTIFY_CODE_MAX,
> > };
> >
> > @@ -868,6 +869,12 @@ struct fuse_notify_retrieve_in {
> > uint64_t dummy4;
> > };
> >
> > +struct fuse_notify_lock_out {
> > + uint64_t id;
>
> Please call this field "unique" or "lock_unique" so it's clear this
> identifier is the fuse_header_in->unique value of the lock request.
Ok, will do.
Vivek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists