From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758442Ab0JFGS1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2010 02:18:27 -0400 Received: from e23smtp08.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.141]:58276 "EHLO e23smtp08.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757050Ab0JFGS0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2010 02:18:26 -0400 From: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" To: Eric Van Hensbergen Cc: v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH 1/3] fs/9p: Update TLCREATE to allow create without open In-Reply-To: References: <1286298090-2422-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.3.1-58-g6607fd6 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.0.50.2 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:48:15 +0530 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 13:15:42 -0400, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > Ouch. Protocol change. > > Also - not sure I understand what's going on here. Why does mknod go > through TLCREATE, shouldn't we have our > own protocol messages for mknod?// This is needed for the below mknod usage mknod("k2", S_IFREG) ; > > Why add an additional flag field instead of just using the existing > flags field since we are only talking about a bit? > TLCREATE is size[4] Tlcreate tag[2] fid[4] name[s] flags[4] mode[4] gid[4] size[4] Rlcreate tag[2] qid[13] iounit[4] The flags argument represent Linux access mode flags with which the caller is requesting to open the file with. Protocol allows all the Linux access Having a -1 with the flag would indicate all the access mode flags are set. So i found that to be ugly. And value 0 indicate O_RDONLY. So was not sure whether -1 in flags or having a separate lookup flags is the right thing to do. -aneesh