linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org>
To: Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@virtuozzo.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: fuse: when are release requests queued?
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 13:34:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a85svk7y.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANFUzJjfCZZpV6SOs5fe0ihSzvZCUw5459GrGQcCFY=9jci2og@mail.gmail.com> (Michael Theall's message of "Wed, 31 May 2017 19:51:47 +0000")

On May 31 2017, Michael Theall <pigman46-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> I do not fully understand the difference you describe. What I would like
>> to construct is the following scenario:
>>
>> 1. Userspace calls close()
>> 2. Userspace close() returns
>> 3. Userspace calls unlink()
>> 4. Userspace unlink() returns
>> 5. libfuse reads UNLINK request from kernel pipe
>> 6. libfuse reads RELEASE request from kernel pipe
>>
>> What would be the simplest way to do that?
>>
> Won't unlink(2) block until the fuse server has responded?

Yes, you are right. It should be:

 1. Userspace calls close()
 2. Userspace close() returns
 3. Userspace calls unlink()
 4. libfuse reads UNLINK request from kernel pipe
 5. Userspace unlink() returns
 6. libfuse reads RELEASE request from kernel pipe

> I'm pretty sure
> the close(2) should come back after the fuse server responds to FLUSH. It
> sounds like with your RELEASE delay in the kernel, you should get your
> steps as described buy step 4 and 5 must be swapped.

No, the delay comes in between (1) and (2).

Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-31 20:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-25 23:08 fuse: when are release requests queued? Nikolaus Rath
2017-05-26 15:17 ` [fuse-devel] " David Butterfield
2017-05-26 23:11   ` Nikolaus Rath
2017-05-27  1:49     ` [fuse-devel] " Maxim Patlasov
2017-05-27  1:39 ` Maxim Patlasov
2017-05-29 16:49   ` Nikolaus Rath
2017-05-31 17:50     ` Maxim Patlasov
2017-05-31 19:19       ` Nikolaus Rath
2017-05-31 19:32         ` Maxim Patlasov
2017-05-31 19:41           ` Nikolaus Rath
     [not found]             ` <87inkgvmp0.fsf-Zv899e0YUSYPWKMTL/zdXNi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org>
2017-05-31 19:51               ` Michael Theall
2017-05-31 20:34                 ` Nikolaus Rath [this message]
2017-05-31 20:23             ` [fuse-devel] " Maxim Patlasov
2017-05-31 20:31               ` Nikolaus Rath
2017-05-31 20:47                 ` Maxim Patlasov

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=87a85svk7y.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org \
    --to=nikolaus@rath.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mpatlasov@virtuozzo.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).