Miao,
Thanks for the review.
A new patch was sent.
Anand
On 11/28/2012 06:25 PM, Miao Xie wrote:
On wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:02:56 +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
On 11/28/2012 11:05 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
On wed, 28 Nov 2012 02:29:17 +0800, Anand jain wrote:
/*
@@ -2441,6 +2443,14 @@ static inline bool btrfs_root_readonly(struct btrfs_root *root)
{
return (root->root_item.flags & cpu_to_le64(BTRFS_ROOT_SUBVOL_RDONLY)) != 0;
}
+static inline char * btrfs_root_label(struct btrfs_root_item *root_item)
+{
+ return (root_item->label);
+}
+static inline void btrfs_root_set_label(struct btrfs_root_item *root_item, char *val)
+{
+ memcpy(root_item->label, val, BTRFS_SUBVOL_LABEL_SIZE);
+}
/* struct btrfs_root_backup */
BTRFS_SETGET_STACK_FUNCS(backup_tree_root, struct btrfs_root_backup,
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
index e58bd9d..f0b3d9d 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
@@ -3725,6 +3725,57 @@ static int btrfs_ioctl_set_label(struct btrfs_root *root, void __user *arg)
return 0;
}
+static int btrfs_ioctl_subvol_getlabel(struct btrfs_root *root,
+ void __user *arg)
+{
+ char *label;
+
+ label = btrfs_root_label(&root->root_item);
+ if (copy_to_user(arg, label, BTRFS_SUBVOL_LABEL_SIZE))
+ return -EFAULT;
we also need lock here.
yes. wish memcpy is atomic.
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int btrfs_ioctl_subvol_setlabel(struct file *file,
+ void __user *arg)
+{
+ char label[BTRFS_SUBVOL_LABEL_SIZE+1];
+ struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
+ struct btrfs_root *root = BTRFS_I(fdentry(file)->d_inode)->root;
+ struct inode *inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
+ int ret;
+
+ if (btrfs_root_readonly(root))
+ return -EROFS;
+
+ if (!inode_owner_or_capable(inode))
+ return -EACCES;
+
+ ret = mnt_want_write_file(file);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (copy_from_user(label, arg, BTRFS_SUBVOL_LABEL_SIZE)) {
+ ret = -EFAULT;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
we should use a lock which belongs to the root not inode.
I couldn't find an already defined lock which would exactly
fit the purpose here. Do you have any idea ?
I thinks we may use ->root_times_lock, but we need change the name
to make it suitable for its role.
Thanks
Miao
Thanks, Anand
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
