On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:50:35 +0200
Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Each WRITE request must carry a valid file descriptor. When a page is
> written back from a memory mapping, the file through which the page
> was dirtied is not available, so a new mechananism is needed to find a
> suitable file in ->writepage(s).
>
> A list of fuse_files is added to fuse_inode. The file is removed from
> the list in fuse_release().
>
> This patch is in preparation for writable mmap support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
> Index: linux/fs/fuse/file.c
> ===
> --- linux.orig/fs/fuse/file.c 2007-10-01 22:42:26.0 +0200
> +++ linux/fs/fuse/file.c 2007-10-01 22:42:27.0 +0200
> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ struct fuse_file *fuse_file_alloc(void)
> kfree(ff);
> ff = NULL;
> }
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ff->write_entry);
> atomic_set(&ff->count, 0);
> }
> return ff;
> @@ -150,12 +151,18 @@ int fuse_release_common(struct inode *in
> {
> struct fuse_file *ff = file->private_data;
> if (ff) {
> + struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn(inode);
> +
> fuse_release_fill(ff, get_node_id(inode), file->f_flags,
> isdir ? FUSE_RELEASEDIR : FUSE_RELEASE);
>
> /* Hold vfsmount and dentry until release is finished */
> ff->reserved_req->vfsmount = mntget(file->f_path.mnt);
> ff->reserved_req->dentry = dget(file->f_path.dentry);
> +
> + spin_lock(&fc->lock);
> + list_del(&ff->write_entry);
> + spin_unlock(&fc->lock);
> /*
>* Normally this will send the RELEASE request,
>* however if some asynchronous READ or WRITE requests
> Index: linux/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h
> ===
> --- linux.orig/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h 2007-10-01 22:42:24.0 +0200
> +++ linux/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h2007-10-01 22:43:15.0 +0200
> @@ -70,6 +70,9 @@ struct fuse_inode {
>
> /** Version of last attribute change */
> u64 attr_version;
> +
> + /** Files usable in writepage. Protected by fc->lock */
> + struct list_head write_files;
> };
>
> /** FUSE specific file data */
> @@ -82,6 +85,9 @@ struct fuse_file {
>
> /** Refcount */
> atomic_t count;
> +
> + /** Entry on inode's write_files list */
> + struct list_head write_entry;
> };
>
> /** One input argument of a request */
> Index: linux/fs/fuse/inode.c
> ===
> --- linux.orig/fs/fuse/inode.c2007-10-01 22:42:24.0 +0200
> +++ linux/fs/fuse/inode.c 2007-10-01 22:42:27.0 +0200
> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ static struct inode *fuse_alloc_inode(st
> fi->i_time = 0;
> fi->nodeid = 0;
> fi->nlookup = 0;
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->write_files);
> fi->forget_req = fuse_request_alloc();
> if (!fi->forget_req) {
> kmem_cache_free(fuse_inode_cachep, inode);
> @@ -68,6 +69,7 @@ static struct inode *fuse_alloc_inode(st
> static void fuse_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
> {
> struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(inode);
> + BUG_ON(!list_empty(&fi->write_files));
> if (fi->forget_req)
> fuse_request_free(fi->forget_req);
> kmem_cache_free(fuse_inode_cachep, inode);
hm. At no point in this patch series does anything actually get added to
these lists, so this patch is presently a no-op.
I'll assume that it will get used later. But it is a bit odd to add
infrastructure in a patch series, then not use it. Why not hold the patch
back and include it in the patch series which actually uses these lists for
something?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
