Re: [RFC] write(2) semantics wrt return values and current position

[Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@oracle.com>]

On 04/09/2015 07:42 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:23:33PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:48:44PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like if generic_file_direct_write() return -EIOCBQUEUED and
>>> IS_SYNC(inode) is true, the sync range is also wrong.
>> *blink*
>>
>> But in that case it shouldn't do any syncing at all...  Oh, right.
>> Unlike generic_file_write_iter(), if goes into the sync pathway
>> in that case (which was another long-standing bug there)...
>>
>> Fixed and force-pushed.
> 	BTW, what about the locks needed to stabilize the file size?
> generic_write_checks() in there looks like it's called too late - we
> can't tell a damn thing about alignment until we do it, so at the very
> least we might need to recheck that.
>
> 	Can we move it _before_ ocfs2_prepare_inode_for_write()?
> Having it done twice in case we end up on "can't really do O_DIRECT, unlock
> and redo everything without asking for direct IO" path is not a problem -
> we just need to save the original count and restore it before that
> goto relock in there.
>
> 	Do we hold enough locks to make sure that file size won't change
> under us?
I think holding ocfs2_rw_lock() for cluster and i_mutex for local will 
stop file size changing under us. So looks safe to do your changes there.

Thanks,
Junxiao.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html