On 5/19/22 20:16, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 at 19:42, Bernd Schubert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Can you help me a bit to understand what we should change? I had also
>> already thought to merge CREATE_EXT and OPEN_ATOMIC - so agreed.
>> Shall we make the other cases more visible?
>
> Make it clear in the code flow if we are using the new request or the
> old; e.g. rename current fuse_atomic_open() to fuse_open_nonatomic()
> and do
>
> static int fuse_open_atomic(...)
> {
> ...
> args.opcode = FUSE_OPEN_ATOMIC;
> ...
> err = fuse_simple_request(...);
> if (err == -ENOSYS)
> goto fallback;
> ...
> fallback:
> return fuse_open_nonatomic();
> }
>
> static int fuse_atomic_open(...)
> {
> if (fc->no_open_atomic)
> return fuse_open_nonatomic();
> else
> return fuse_open_atomic();
> }
>
> Also we can tweak fuse_dentry_revalidate() so it always invalidates
> negative dentries if the new atomic open is available, and possibly
> for positive dentries as well, if the rfc patch makes it.
Thank you, we will try to do it like that during the next day.
Thanks,
Bernd