I pushed the other cifs patches to cifs-2.6.git for-next (and created
a for-next-without-aio-iter branch that also includes the same set of
cifs patch and also includes the older version of your revalidate
patch that builds on current kernels) but your revalidate read_iter
patch is not going to merge to for-next without me picking up at a
minimum the patch that adds read_iter and write_iter to fs/cifs.
Suggestions?
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes - makes sense. I am rebuilding for-next branch of cifs-2.6.git
> now. I plan to put your patch on the tip of the branch - I may create
> two branches, one with old and one with new version of the patch since
> when I am testing latest cifs patches (and also the proposed SMB3
> Posix extensions) don't have Al's series.
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 May 2014 06:50:21 -0400
>> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Before satisfying a read with cache=loose, we should always check
>>> that the pagecache is valid before allowing a read to be satisfied
>>> out of it.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/cifs/cifsfs.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
>>> index 2c90d07c0b3a..888398067420 100644
>>> --- a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
>>> +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
>>> @@ -725,6 +725,19 @@ out_nls:
>>> goto out;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static ssize_t
>>> +cifs_loose_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>>> +{
>>> + ssize_t rc;
>>> + struct inode *inode = file_inode(iocb->ki_filp);
>>> +
>>> + rc = cifs_revalidate_mapping(inode);
>>> + if (rc)
>>> + return rc;
>>> +
>>> + return generic_file_read_iter(iocb, iter);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static ssize_t cifs_file_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
>>> {
>>> struct inode *inode = file_inode(iocb->ki_filp);
>>> @@ -881,7 +894,7 @@ const struct inode_operations cifs_symlink_inode_ops = {
>>> const struct file_operations cifs_file_ops = {
>>> .read = new_sync_read,
>>> .write = new_sync_write,
>>> - .read_iter = generic_file_read_iter,
>>> + .read_iter = cifs_loose_read_iter,
>>> .write_iter = cifs_file_write_iter,
>>> .open = cifs_open,
>>> .release = cifs_close,
>>> @@ -939,7 +952,7 @@ const struct file_operations cifs_file_direct_ops = {
>>> const struct file_operations cifs_file_nobrl_ops = {
>>> .read = new_sync_read,
>>> .write = new_sync_write,
>>> - .read_iter = generic_file_read_iter,
>>> + .read_iter = cifs_loose_read_iter,
>>> .write_iter = cifs_file_write_iter,
>>> .open = cifs_open,
>>> .release = cifs_close,
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> This patch is a replacement for the last patch in the 4 patch series
>> for handling reads when cache=loose. The reason for the respin is that
>> aio_read has been replaced by read_iter in linux-next, so this is what
>> we'll want for v3.16 (once Al's read_iter patches are merged).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
--
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
