On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:31 PM, Luis Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Yan, Zheng" <ukernel@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Luis Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> +struct cap_extra_info {
>>>> + struct ceph_string *pool_ns;
>>>> + u64 inline_version;
>>>> + void *inline_data;
>>>> + u32 inline_len;
>>>> + // currently issued
>>>
>>> nit picking: I would rather have C-style comments.
>>>
>>>> + int issued;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> /*
>>>> * Handle a cap GRANT message from the MDS. (Note that a GRANT may
>>>> * actually be a revocation if it specifies a smaller cap set.)
>>>> *
>>>> * caller holds s_mutex and i_ceph_lock, we drop both.
>>>> */
>>>> -static void handle_cap_grant(struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc,
>>>> - struct inode *inode, struct ceph_mds_caps *grant,
>>>> - struct ceph_string **pns, u64 inline_version,
>>>> - void *inline_data, u32 inline_len,
>>>> - struct ceph_buffer *xattr_buf,
>>>> +static void handle_cap_grant(struct inode *inode,
>>>> struct ceph_mds_session *session,
>>>> - struct ceph_cap *cap, int issued)
>>>> + struct ceph_cap *cap,
>>>> + struct ceph_mds_caps *grant,
>>>> + struct ceph_buffer *xattr_buf,
>>>> + struct cap_extra_info *extra_info)
>>>> __releases(ci->i_ceph_lock)
>>>> - __releases(mdsc->snap_rwsem)
>>>> + __releases(sesson->s_mdsc->snap_rwsem)
>>> ^^^^^^
>>> There's a typo here - it should be 'session'.
>>>
>>
>> thanks. I updated testing branch, please take a look
>
> Thank you, it looks good to me.
>
> However, I have a question regarding a different commit in that branch:
>
> 7ec55c7a52c6 "ceph: update i_files/i_subdirs only when Fs cap is issued"
>
> This commit has been changed from the original patch posted here, and it
> now includes some (unrelated) changes which I don't really understand:
>
> - issued = __ceph_caps_issued(ci, &implemented);
> - issued |= implemented | __ceph_caps_dirty(ci);
> - new_issued = ~issued & le32_to_cpu(info->cap.caps);
> + __ceph_caps_issued(ci, &issued);
> + issued |= __ceph_caps_dirty(ci);
> + new_issued = ~issued & info_caps;
>
> Why isn't 'issued' not being ORed with the implemented caps anymore?
> Was that a bug in the previous code?
>
implemented bits should always includes issued bits.
Regards
Yan, Zheng
> Cheers,
> --
> Luis
--
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
