Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v15 19/21] osdep: Add qemu_lock_fd and qemu_unlock_fd

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 26.04.2017 um 15:20 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> On Wed, 04/26 14:57, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 26.04.2017 um 05:34 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> > > They are wrappers of POSIX fcntl "file private locking", with a
> > > convenient "try lock" wrapper implemented with F_OFD_GETLK.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/qemu/osdep.h |  3 +++
> > >  util/osdep.c         | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 51 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/qemu/osdep.h b/include/qemu/osdep.h
> > > index 122ff06..1c9f5e2 100644
> > > --- a/include/qemu/osdep.h
> > > +++ b/include/qemu/osdep.h
> > > @@ -341,6 +341,9 @@ int qemu_close(int fd);
> > >  #ifndef _WIN32
> > >  int qemu_dup(int fd);
> > >  #endif
> > > +int qemu_lock_fd(int fd, int64_t start, int64_t len, bool exclusive);
> > > +int qemu_unlock_fd(int fd, int64_t start, int64_t len);
> > > +int qemu_lock_fd_test(int fd, int64_t start, int64_t len, bool exclusive);
> > 
> > For the record: On IRC, I proposed adding something like the following:
> > 
> >     #ifndef F_OFD_SETLK
> >     #define F_OFD_SETLK F_SETLK
> >     #define F_OFD_GETLK F_GETLK
> >     #endif
> > 
> > F_OFD_* are still relatively new and e.g. RHEL 7 doesn't support it yet.
> > Using process-based locks is suboptimal because we can easily lose them
> > earlier than we want, but it's still better than nothing and covers the
> > common simple cases.
> 
> Yes, we should add that. But I'd prefer:
> 
>     #ifdef F_OFD_SETLK
>     #define QEMU_SETLK F_OFD_SETLK
>     #define QEMU_GETLK F_OFD_GETLK
>     #else
>     #define QEMU_SETLK F_SETLK
>     #define QEMU_GETLK F_GETLK
>     #endif
> 
> to avoid "abusing" the macro name.

Makes sense.

> Another question is whether we should print a warning to make users
> aware? Even the test case in patch 21 can see three "lock losses" on
> RHEL with posix lock, and there are way more corner cases, I believe.
> 
> We can print a warning to stderr in raw_open_common when F_OFD_GETLK
> is not available, I think.

Yes, this sounds reasonable, too. Dependent on s->use_locks, I guess.

Kevin