Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Fri, 22 Apr 2022 22:13:15 +0900
From:   asmadeus@codewreck.org
To:     Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        David Kahurani <k.kahurani@gmail.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
        ericvh@gmail.com, kuba@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        lucho@ionkov.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>
Subject: Re: 9p EBADF with cache enabled (Was: 9p fs-cache tests/benchmark
 (was: 9p fscache Duplicate cookie detected))
Message-ID: <YmKp68xvZEjBFell@codewreck.org>
References: <YlySEa6QGmIHlrdG@codewreck.org>
 <YlyFEuTY7tASl8aY@codewreck.org>
 <1050016.1650537372@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <1817268.LulUJvKFVv@silver>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1817268.LulUJvKFVv@silver>
Precedence: bulk

Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 01:36:14PM +0200:
> I hope this does not sound harsh, wouldn't it make sense to revert 
> eb497943fa215897f2f60fd28aa6fe52da27ca6c for now until those issues are sorted 
> out? My concern is that it might take a long time to address them, and these 
> are not minor issues.

I'm not sure that's possible at all, the related old fscache code has
been ripped out since and just reverting won't work.

I'm also curious why that behavior changed though, I don't think the
old code had any special handling of partially written pages either...
Understanding that might give a key to a small quick fix.


It is quite a bad bug though and really wish I could give it the
attention it deserves, early next month has a few holidays here
hopefully I'll be able to look at it closer then :/

-- 
Dominique