Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 21:47:41 +1000
From:   Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, riteshh@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: introduce direct IO write code path using
 iomap infrastructure
Message-ID: <20190829114740.GC2486@poseidon.bobrowski.net>
References: <cover.1565609891.git.mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
 <581c3a2da89991e7ce5862d93dcfb23e1dc8ddc8.1565609891.git.mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
 <20190828202619.GG22343@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20190828223218.GZ7777@dread.disaster.area>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190828223218.GZ7777@dread.disaster.area>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 08:32:18AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:26:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 12-08-19 22:53:26, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > > @@ -235,6 +244,34 @@ static ssize_t ext4_write_checks(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
> > >  	return iov_iter_count(from);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static ssize_t ext4_buffered_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb,
> > > +					struct iov_iter *from)
> > > +{
> > > +	ssize_t ret;
> > > +	struct inode *inode = file_inode(iocb->ki_filp);
> > > +
> > > +	if (!inode_trylock(inode)) {
> > > +		if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT)
> > > +			return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > +		inode_lock(inode);
> > > +	}
> > 
> > Currently there's no support for IOCB_NOWAIT for buffered IO so you can
> > replace this with "inode_lock(inode)".
> 
> IOCB_NOWAIT is supported for buffered reads. It is not supported on
> buffered writes (as yet), so this should return EOPNOTSUPP if
> IOCB_NOWAIT is set, regardless of whether the lock can be grabbed or
> not.

Noted! Thank you Dave. ;-)

--M