Re: [PATCH 3/4] NFSD: Add WRITE_PLUS support for hole punches

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:06 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:50:56AM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
>> On Mon 28 Oct 2013 05:40:30 PM EDT, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:57:25AM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
>>>> index 419572f..3210c6f 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
>>>> @@ -1028,6 +1028,42 @@ nfsd4_write(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>>>> 	return status;
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> +static __be32
>>>> +nfsd4_write_plus_hole(struct file *file, struct nfsd4_write_plus *writeplus,
>>>> +		      struct net *net)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	__be32 status;
>>>> +
>>>> +	status = nfsd4_vfs_fallocate(file, writeplus->wp_allocated,
>>>> +				writeplus->wp_offset, writeplus->wp_length);
>>>> +	if (status == nfs_ok) {
>>>> +		writeplus->wp_res.wr_stid = NULL;
>>>> +		writeplus->wp_res.wr_bytes_written = writeplus->wp_length;
>>>> +		writeplus->wp_res.wr_stable_how = NFS_FILE_SYNC;
>>> 
>>> Do we need to sync?
>> 
>> I did the sync in nfsd4_vfs_fallocate (below), but I can move it if 
>> that would make more sense.
> 
> What I meant was--why are we doing a sync at all, instead of returning
> NFS_UNSTABLE and making the client commit?

What if the client specifies FILE_SYNC? The spec doesn't allow the server to return UNSTABLE in that situation.

Trond--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux