From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f46.google.com (mail-ej1-f46.google.com [209.85.218.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C29204DA1D for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:29:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.46 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706783346; cv=none; b=QbjzYw8w2WDe+O7GjPW7508YnLIcI5HsTbrDeLRlpayMxJPKW3ybcXlolCCZDsJ9ElVFatgrED7DmWpu0JUEQ2Yp1R5fC/7cklCCQsmzQ4G09eWuYzZ/r8jQDtjbN+spyf9gYPj0D0pcBZaThAJux1RinXPLc5E8wSZv89lMQQ0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706783346; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4bY7UZC6F0iEcfCyio2JtneQgLqFyahA1E9s4ohixvo=; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=NxskGaC2j1qL0xo9m6wzYH89DQzE7dxLPcjg/YuzaE2m9zUTAmjRlYzT0MHVNwDi0qr2ACdzcaV9pdL2t7LmNCBzRKwZBwHRCzWycRYmQ+eEGbIDyLDROnfpHYPiHrGuw6pFajXx1Zll7M6p/iCu3Uf13Lcxbu9mIfXZ0qDPGRg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=szeredi.hu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=szeredi.hu; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=szeredi.hu header.i=@szeredi.hu header.b=nbKmx9Kh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.46 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=szeredi.hu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=szeredi.hu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=szeredi.hu header.i=@szeredi.hu header.b="nbKmx9Kh" Received: by mail-ej1-f46.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a30f7c9574eso96941266b.0 for ; Thu, 01 Feb 2024 02:29:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=szeredi.hu; s=google; t=1706783342; x=1707388142; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4bY7UZC6F0iEcfCyio2JtneQgLqFyahA1E9s4ohixvo=; b=nbKmx9Kh6v2/fqKd4ByL/LJSAT5heGjOTp7kmlbmwe4wjdx0SMnletoqJ6cCZLfsPw AIOI+GHAO2vUdv9pjL2fzcICFhoKvCbevTMvT/wiKfzfFtc3OmRE3otexPIeQO5riR0g X4EVorIZNHG8mtMfoX8lRFl7N9FjmyA1HZD7A= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706783342; x=1707388142; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=4bY7UZC6F0iEcfCyio2JtneQgLqFyahA1E9s4ohixvo=; b=mLDvZJBYRL17Sa5IfXcEWA4gvCWbWiZRZi59GkG140LJhRt1w4k7A6OpG6QGC/gBaU 7k7xeV4Qb/32+/GcuvOz3Gcqebh+vh/h59v3Uj7kM8HZ37/1qLE/2yBWS5WyYMdRlTUI ArX6bC/HArcPm94oDhOr8c8VoFegKexOMVALiq303YYZDv7pks+K70A1+jyvGL6F9W2W tjPWoGgn2nFCDrBWbHiSXBlrMnvLH5v6cuG7xolsB6UZndbxDUzZv6QdJpIJs31Ai9Do Hl7IT9h0vXFD1d6z/rVTKxVh8xSzSf3KNVHZVux5sz8Kn12Vi30ue1z61HIrTBuGoGU/ wBuw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz0chgqPl7uw0R/xio0SmmUNkC9sI4En6zvNCD8iWnbBpwDQWnV cy84v+48UJM2OLD4Fl4OKWP5jp2tXDDOOwSoE9o2I9S0Re4fou2EiEPBzSlcN+D9Qz7huNmekmv MfKKZftLvBcxNaHJ+QHmA1y4fqWZAEhWXg/6u+VrLrWfi+/8P X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGQNyzPfdZqwV1VHVDTGA8DodGSPCrKNI3shQclFWGP3eVv1dR9+y5P5eVEXUDdGNYr0bflkF417WfkKeHu0vo= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:46d4:b0:a35:78e1:2d1f with SMTP id k20-20020a17090646d400b00a3578e12d1fmr1386879ejs.71.1706783341958; Thu, 01 Feb 2024 02:29:01 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240131230827.207552-1-bschubert@ddn.com> <20240131230827.207552-5-bschubert@ddn.com> In-Reply-To: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:28:50 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] fuse: prepare for failing open response To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Bernd Schubert , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, dsingh@ddn.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 at 11:16, Amir Goldstein wrote: > I can look into it, but for now the fix to fuse_sync_release() is a simple > one liner, so I would rather limit the changes in this series. Not urgent, but it might be a good idea to add a cleanup patch as a prep, which would make this patch just that one line less complex. > Is fuse_finish_open() supposed to be called after clearing O_TRUNC > in fuse_create_open()? This will invalidate size/modification time, which we've just updated with the correct post open values. > I realize that this is what the code is doing in upstream, but it does not > look correct. I think it's correct, because it deals with the effect of FUSE_OPEN/O_TRUNC on attributes that weren't refreshed in contrast to fuse_create_open() where the attributes were refreshed. Thanks, Miklos