[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <774ac783-98f8-eedb-af55-ff99eef5369c@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 22:31:08 +0800
From: JeffleXu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-cachefs@...hat.com, xiang@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org,
linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, willy@...radead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com,
bo.liu@...ux.alibaba.com, tao.peng@...ux.alibaba.com,
gerry@...ux.alibaba.com, eguan@...ux.alibaba.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luodaowen.backend@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/22] cachefiles: notify user daemon when withdrawing
cookie
On 3/21/22 10:20 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Jeffle Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
>> Notify user daemon that cookie is going to be withdrawed, providing a
>
> "withdrawn".
Thanks.
>
>> + /* CLOSE request doesn't look forward a reply */
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.
When cookie gets withdrawn, Cachefiles will send a CLOSE request to user
daemon, telling that the associated anon_fd could be closed. But it's
just a hint. User daemon could keep the anon_fd open when it receives
the CLOSE request. After sending the CLOSE request, Cachefiles will go
on the process of withdrawing cookie and won't wait for a reply
synchronously. So CLOSE request is just a hint to user daemon, and it
doesn't need to be replied.
--
Thanks,
Jeffle
Powered by blists - more mailing lists