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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).