> On 5 Apr 2017, at 22:16, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 09:30 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/ceph/file.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/file.c b/fs/ceph/file.c
>> index 579a16c..0480492 100644
>> --- a/fs/ceph/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/ceph/file.c
>> @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ int ceph_renew_caps(struct inode *inode)
>> spin_lock(&ci->i_ceph_lock);
>> wanted = __ceph_caps_file_wanted(ci);
>> if (__ceph_is_any_real_caps(ci) &&
>> - (!(wanted & CEPH_CAP_ANY_WR) == 0 || ci->i_auth_cap)) {
>> + (!(wanted & CEPH_CAP_ANY_WR) || ci->i_auth_cap)) {
>> int issued = __ceph_caps_issued(ci, NULL);
>> spin_unlock(&ci->i_ceph_lock);
>> dout("renew caps %p want %s issued %s updating mds_wanted\n",
>
> That certainly looks more like what was intended, but I'm still a
> little unclear on why we have so much special casing in all of this
> caps handling.
>
> Why do we skip ceph_check_caps if we want CEPH_CAP_ANY_WR?
It’s for multiple active mds setup. client can request read caps from any mds (that replicates the inode). client need to request write caps from auth mds.
Regards
Yan, Zheng
> --
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
