From: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV)" <jvrao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH -V1 4/4] hw/9pfs: Add open flag to fid
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:34:42 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wrkjgyv9.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D6C5358.1000200@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:00:56 -0800, "Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV)" <jvrao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 2/5/2011 10:08 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > We use this flag when we reopen the file. We need
> > to track open flag because if the open request have
> > flags like O_SYNC, we want to open the file with same flag
> > in host too
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > hw/9pfs/virtio-9p.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > hw/9pfs/virtio-9p.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p.c b/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p.c
> > index 1518e00..cbdf705 100644
> > --- a/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p.c
> > +++ b/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p.c
> > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
> > int debug_9p_pdu;
> > static void v9fs_reclaim_fd(V9fsState *s);
> >
> > +#define PASS_OPEN_FLAG (O_SYNC | O_DSYNC | O_RSYNC | \
> > + O_EXCL)
> > enum {
> > Oread = 0x00,
> > Owrite = 0x01,
> > @@ -68,6 +70,24 @@ static int omode_to_uflags(int8_t mode)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +static int get_dotl_openflags(int oflags)
> > +{
> > + int flags;
> > + /*
> > + * Since we can share the fd between multiple fids,
> > + * open the file in read write mode
> > + */
> > + flags = O_RDWR;
> > + /*
> > + * If the client asked for any of the below flags we
> > + * should open the file with same open flag
> > + */
> > + if (oflags & PASS_OPEN_FLAG) {
> > + flags = oflags & PASS_OPEN_FLAG;
> Isn't it
>
> flags |= oflags & PASS_OPEN_FLAG; ?
Already fixed in my local tree.
> > + }
> > + return flags;
> > +}
> > +
> > void cred_init(FsCred *credp)
> > {
> > credp->fc_uid = -1;
> > @@ -452,9 +472,9 @@ static V9fsFidState *lookup_fid(V9fsState *s, int32_t fid)
> > * descriptors.
> > */
> > if (f->fsmap.fid_type == P9_FID_FILE) {
> > - /* FIXME!! should we remember the open flags ?*/
> > if (f->fsmap.fs.fd == -1) {
> > - f->fsmap.fs.fd = v9fs_do_open(s, &f->fsmap.path, O_RDWR);
> > + f->fsmap.fs.fd = v9fs_do_open(s, &f->fsmap.path,
> > + f->fsmap.open_flags);
> > }
> > }
> > /*
> > @@ -1811,14 +1831,19 @@ static void v9fs_open_post_lstat(V9fsState *s, V9fsOpenState *vs, int err)
> > v9fs_open_post_opendir(s, vs, err);
> > } else {
> > if (s->proto_version == V9FS_PROTO_2000L) {
> > - flags = vs->mode;
> > - flags &= ~(O_NOCTTY | O_ASYNC | O_CREAT);
> > - /* Ignore direct disk access hint until the server supports it. */
> > - flags &= ~O_DIRECT;
>
> This is more drastic change. So far we are ignoring only few flags..but with
> this we are allowing only few flags. Need to understand the impact of this on
> dotl protocol.
The goal is to make sure we use only those flags that make sense for the
host file system. That would enable us to share the fd between multiple
fids. We cannot share fd with different open flags.
>
> Also I would put this patch ahead of introducing fid reclaim patch.
>
> > + flags = get_dotl_openflags(vs->mode);
> > } else {
> > flags = omode_to_uflags(vs->mode);
> > }
> > vs->fidp->fsmap.fs.fd = v9fs_do_open(s, &vs->fidp->fsmap.path, flags);
> > + vs->fidp->fsmap.open_flags = flags;
> > + if (flags & O_EXCL) {
> > + /*
> > + * We let the host file system do O_EXCL check
> > + * We should not reclaim such fd
> > + */
> > + vs->fidp->fsmap.flags |= FID_NON_RECLAIMABLE;
> > + }
> > v9fs_open_post_open(s, vs, err);
> > }
> > return;
> > @@ -1937,11 +1962,22 @@ static void v9fs_lcreate(V9fsState *s, V9fsPDU *pdu)
> > v9fs_string_sprintf(&vs->fullname, "%s/%s", vs->fidp->fsmap.path.data,
> > vs->name.data);
> >
> > - /* Ignore direct disk access hint until the server supports it. */
> > - flags &= ~O_DIRECT;
> > -
> > + flags = get_dotl_openflags(flags);
> > vs->fidp->fsmap.fs.fd = v9fs_do_open2(s, vs->fullname.data, vs->fidp->uid,
> > - gid, flags, mode);
> > + gid, flags, mode);
> > + /*
> > + * We don't want to recreate the in reclaim path. So remove
> > + * create flag
> > + */
> > + flags &= ~O_CREAT;
> > + vs->fidp->fsmap.open_flags = flags;
> > + if (flags & O_EXCL) {
> > + /*
> > + * We let the host file system do O_EXCL check
> > + * We should not reclaim such fd
> > + */
> > + vs->fidp->fsmap.flags |= FID_NON_RECLAIMABLE;
> > + }
> You can move above two steps to here by...
> vs->fidp->fsmap.open_flags = flags & ~O_CREAT
> > v9fs_lcreate_post_do_open2(s, vs, err);
> > return;
> >
> > @@ -2653,6 +2689,7 @@ static void v9fs_create_post_lstat(V9fsState *s, V9fsCreateState *vs, int err)
> > -1,
> > omode_to_uflags(vs->mode)|O_CREAT,
> > vs->perm);
> > + vs->fidp->fsmap.open_flags = omode_to_uflags(vs->mode);
>
> why are we not doing ~O_CREAT here?
>
We don't have O_CREATE in open_flags. I explicitly pass that to the
above call. I also have another fix to make it work correct for dotl.
May be i should post the new version i have
-aneesh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-01 6:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-05 18:08 [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH -V1 1/4] hw/9pfs: Add file descriptor reclaim support Aneesh Kumar K.V
2011-02-05 18:08 ` [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH -V1 2/4] hw/9pfs: Use v9fs_do_close instead of close Aneesh Kumar K.V
2011-02-05 18:08 ` [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH -V1 3/4] hw/9pfs: Implement syncfs Aneesh Kumar K.V
2011-03-01 1:48 ` Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV)
2011-03-01 6:07 ` Aneesh Kumar K. V
2011-02-05 18:08 ` [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH -V1 4/4] hw/9pfs: Add open flag to fid Aneesh Kumar K.V
2011-03-01 2:00 ` Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV)
2011-03-01 6:04 ` Aneesh Kumar K. V [this message]
2011-03-01 1:44 ` [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH -V1 1/4] hw/9pfs: Add file descriptor reclaim support Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV)
2011-03-01 6:11 ` Aneesh Kumar K. V
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87wrkjgyv9.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=aliguori@us.ibm.com \
--cc=jvrao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.