> > > > We discussed this yesterday. My conclusion was (which I still think > > is true) that it can't be fixed in page_cache_pipe_buf_confirm(), > > because due to current practice of not setting PG_error for I/O errors > > for read, it is impossible to distinguish between a never-been-uptodate > > page and a was-uptodate-before-invalidation page. > > Umm. The regular read does this quite well. If something isn't up-to-date, > it tries a synchronous read. Once. Exactly. And if page_cache_pipe_buf_confirm() could do a synchronous re-read of the page, that would work. But it can't, because it only has the page and not the file. > > And it's not just an nfsd issue. Userspace might also expect that if > > a zero count is returned, that means it went beyond EOF, and not that > > it should retry the splice, maybe it has better luck this time. > > You're totally ignoring the real issue - user space that uses splice() > *knows* that it uses splice(). It's a private mmap(). > > NFSD, on the other hand, is supposed to act as NFSD. I think that > currently it assumes that nobody else modifies the files, which is > reasonable, but breaks with FUSE. Not so. Why couldn't someone modify an ext3 file, while nfsd is holding the page? Is that wrong? I don't know, but it's not fuse specific. > But do you see? That's a NFSD/FUSE issue, not a splice one! No, I think you are wrong. Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
