Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Feedback-ID: id8a24192:Fastmail
Message-ID: <fb2937b5-1bbf-511f-082f-b3b7fbc65128@fastmail.fm>
Date:   Thu, 19 May 2022 22:47:11 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH v5 0/3] FUSE: Implement atomic lookup +
 open/create
Content-Language: fr
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        Bernd Schubert <bschubert@ddn.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Dharmendra Singh <dharamhans87@gmail.com>,
        fuse-devel <fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
References: <20220517100744.26849-1-dharamhans87@gmail.com>
 <CAJfpegsDxsMsyfP4a_5H1q91xFtwcEdu9-WBnzWKwjUSrPNdmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f3555e3c-06d9-4d19-d3a2-9a2779937e83@ddn.com>
 <CAJfpegsJijCeNZ9ES72e=gDNDisK5itG67GK8xNWRar=HMm6gA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm>
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpegsJijCeNZ9ES72e=gDNDisK5itG67GK8xNWRar=HMm6gA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 5/19/22 20:16, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 at 19:42, Bernd Schubert <bschubert@ddn.com> 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