From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] ovl: check if upperdir fs supports O_TMPFILE
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:16:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxjYkohzqSnpAg45WMEGxFEFYJbi3FCrdaODz3SjBBTPZQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpeguX-N0RXrO3oj_ebWPuMPeRcvHn68dx8pO72KdQxthTUQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is needed for choosing between concurrent copyup
>> using O_TMPFILE and legacy copyup using workdir+rename.
>
> I'm really wondering if we should constrain upper fs to those that:
>
> - can do RENAME_EXCHANGE and RENAME_WHITEOUT
> - can do ->tmpfile() which is currently a superset of the above
> - can do xattr, again a superset
Makes sense to me.
Let me know if you want me to add the rename flag test.
>
> The question is whether anybody actually using it with an fs that
> doesn't have all of the above. Because if so, we need to keep
> supporting them. Perhaps we should add warnings about deprecation and
> if nobody complains we can remove support for non-conformant fs.
>
But how exactly do we "support" those fs right now?
Any attempt to use them would result in -EINVAL, because we will
bw requesting RENAME_EXCHANGE and RENAME_WHITEOUT
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-16 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-15 13:57 [PATCH 0/6] ovl: concurrent copy up Amir Goldstein
2017-01-15 13:57 ` [PATCH 1/6] vfs: create vfs helper vfs_tmpfile() Amir Goldstein
2017-01-16 11:00 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-01-16 11:19 ` Amir Goldstein
2017-01-16 13:22 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-01-16 14:04 ` Amir Goldstein
2017-01-16 14:15 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-01-15 13:57 ` [PATCH 2/6] ovl: check if upperdir fs supports O_TMPFILE Amir Goldstein
2017-01-16 14:02 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-01-16 14:16 ` Amir Goldstein [this message]
2017-01-16 14:29 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-01-15 13:57 ` [PATCH 3/6] ovl: rearrange code in ovl_copy_up_locked() Amir Goldstein
2017-01-15 13:57 ` [PATCH 4/6] ovl: copy up regular file using O_TMPFILE Amir Goldstein
2017-01-15 13:57 ` [PATCH 5/6] ovl: introduce copy up waitqueue Amir Goldstein
2017-01-15 13:57 ` [PATCH 6/6] ovl: concurrent copy up of regular files Amir Goldstein
2017-01-16 11:05 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-01-16 11:31 ` Amir Goldstein
2017-01-16 11:58 ` [PATCH v2 " Amir Goldstein
2017-01-16 13:29 ` Miklos Szeredi
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=CAOQ4uxjYkohzqSnpAg45WMEGxFEFYJbi3FCrdaODz3SjBBTPZQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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.