On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:09:20 +0400 > Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> After conversation with Steve, we decided to drop >> filemap_write_and_wait from getattr, because we already do it in >> cifs_file_aio_write. I also think that we should drop it from >> cifs_llseek in this case too. I will repost this patch later (launder >> page operation patch was merged earlier). >> > > I wasn't privy to this discussion, but that makes no sense to me. Just > because we initiated writeout in cifs_file_aio_write, does not mean > that it's complete. If it's not complete then the size returned by the > server may be bogus. What would a local file system do in the case when a write is racing with a getattr? In the case of cifs, when we issue a write, and don't have oplock, we immediately send the write on the network - but AFAIK posix provides no guarantees about ordering if they are issued at the same time. -- Thanks, Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
