[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YquYVgBMxY37P+r3@codewreck.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 05:53:42 +0900
From: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
To: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
Cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix EBADF errors in cached mode
Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 10:14:16PM +0200:
> I tested all 3 variants today, and they were all behaving correctly (no EBADF
> errors anymore, no other side effects observed).
Thanks!
> The minimalistic version (i.e. your initial suggestion) performed 20% slower
> in my tests, but that could be due to the fact that it was simply the 1st
> version I tested, so caching on host side might be the reason. If necessary I
> can check the performance aspect more thoroughly.
hmm, yeah we open the writeback fids anyway so I'm not sure what would
be really different performance-wise, but I'd tend to go with the most
restricted change anyway.
> Personally I would at least use the NETFS_READ_FOR_WRITE version, but that's
> up to you. On doubt, clarify with David's plans.
>
> Feel free to add my RB and TB tags to any of the 3 version(s) you end up
> queuing:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
> Tested-by: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
Thanks, I'll add these and resend the last version for archival on the
list / commit message wording check.
At last that issue closed...
--
Dominique
Powered by blists - more mailing lists