Date:   Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:12:39 -0800
From:   Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Volker.Lendecke@sernet.de, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        samba-technical@lists.samba.org,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Better interop for NFS/SMB file share mode/reservation
Message-ID: <20190208221239.GA199180@jra3>
Reply-To: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
References: <CAOQ4uxjQdLrZXkpP30Pq_=Cckcb=mADrEwQUXmsG92r-gn2y5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <379106947f859bdf5db4c6f9c4ab8c44f7423c08.camel@kernel.org>
 <CAOQ4uxgewN=j3ju5MSowEvwhK1HqKG3n1hBRUQTi1W5asaO1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190208155052.GB20573@fieldses.org>
 <CAOQ4uxg9NGPRpMZt0KgH9HUKMRpn0dFta7EnP1WioRb917n4+A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxg9NGPRpMZt0KgH9HUKMRpn0dFta7EnP1WioRb917n4+A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:02:43PM +0200, Amir Goldstein via samba-technical wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 5:51 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:45:46PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > - check_conflicting_open() is changed to use inode_is_open_for_read()
> > >   instead of checking d_count and i_count.
> >
> > Independently of the rest, I'd love to do away with those
> > d_count/i_count checks.  What's inode_is_open_for_read()?
> >
> 
> It would look maybe something like this:
> 
> static inline bool file_is_open_for_read(const struct inode *file)
> {
>         struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
>         int countself = (file->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) ==
> FMODE_READ) ? 1 : 0;
> 
>         return atomic_read(&inode->i_readcount) > countself;
> }
> 
> And it would allow for acquiring F_WRLCK lease if other
> instances of inode are open O_PATH.
> A slight change of semantics that seems harmless(?)
> and will allow some flexibility.
> 
> But if samba can't figure out a way to keep a single open file
> descriptor for oplocks per client-file, then this model doesn't
> help us make any progress.

Samba uses a single file descriptor per SMB2 open file
handle. Is this what you meant ? We need this to keep
the per-handle OFD locks around.