Re: [PATCH] fuse: avoid unnecessary spinlock bump

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 4/11/22 13:54, JeffleXu wrote:


On 4/11/22 7:52 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:10:23AM +0800, JeffleXu wrote:


On 4/8/22 8:06 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
Curiously, why minimum 1 range is not adequate? In which case minimum 2
are required?

Frankly speaking, right now I don't remember. I have vague memories
of concluding in the past that 1 range is not sufficient. But if you
like dive deeper, and try with one range and see if you can introduce
deadlock.


Alright, thanks.



Out of interest, how are you testing this at all? A patch from Dharmendra had been merged last week into libfuse to let it know about flags2, as we need that for our patches. But we didn't update the FLAGS yet to add in DAX on the libfuse side.

Is this used by virtio fs? Or is there another libfuse out there that should know about these flags (I think glusterfs has its own, but probably not using dax?).

Also, testing is always good, although I don't see how Jeffs patch would be able break anything here.



Thanks,
Bernd



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux