[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aWjteRMwc_KIN4pt@fedora.fritz.box>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:38:24 +0100
From: Horst Birthelmer <horst@...thelmer.de>
To: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>
Cc: Horst Birthelmer <horst@...thelmer.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, Bernd Schubert <bschubert@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Horst Birthelmer <hbirthelmer@....com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] fuse: add an implementation of open+getattr
On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 06:29:26PM -0800, Joanne Koong wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 10:27 AM Horst Birthelmer <horst@...thelmer.com> wrote:
> >
> > +
> > + err = fuse_compound_send(compound);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + err = fuse_compound_get_error(compound, 0);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + err = fuse_compound_get_error(compound, 1);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto out;
>
> Hmm, if the open succeeds but the getattr fails, why not process it
> kernel-side as a success for the open? Especially since on the server
> side, libfuse will disassemble the compound request into separate
> ones, so the server has no idea the open is even part of a compound.
>
> I haven't looked at the rest of the patch yet but this caught my
> attention when i was looking at how fuse_compound_get_error() gets
> used.
>
After looking at this again ...
Do you think it would make sense to add an example of lookup+create, or would that just convolute things?
> Thanks,
> Joanne
>
Thanks,
Horst
Powered by blists - more mailing lists