On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:18:37 -0500 Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:24:35 -0500 > > Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> If you are opening O_DIRECT why wouldn't you use oplock, ie still > >> request oplock, simply to minimize metadata traffic (you don't have to > >> send stat across the wire). The reads and writes aren't cached but > >> the inode metadata would be. > >> > > > > What updates the i_size if a DIO write extends the file? > > Doesn't direct writes call cifs_user_writev which calls > cifs_iovec_write which calls cifs_write_from_iter which calls > cifs_uncached_writev_complete > > so looks like i_size should get set > > Ok, fair enough then. I still think it's a little silly to request an oplock that you won't really be using, but I suppose there's no reason to specifically forbid it. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> -- 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
