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;
Date:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 05:53:42 +0900
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
To:     Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
Cc:     Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix EBADF errors in cached mode
Message-ID: <YquYVgBMxY37P+r3@codewreck.org>
References: <YqW5s+GQZwZ/DP5q@codewreck.org>
 <Yqs1Y8G/Emi/q+S2@codewreck.org>
 <Yqs6BPVc3rNZ9byJ@codewreck.org>
 <15767273.MGizftpLG7@silver>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <15767273.MGizftpLG7@silver>
Precedence: bulk

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@crudebyte.com>
> Tested-by: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.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