"Yan, Zheng" <ukernel@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
Ah, right. I should have looked closer in the code :-)
Thanks for clarifying.
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
