On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 03:37:42PM +0530, Dharmendra Singh wrote:
[..]
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h b/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h
> index d6ccee961891..bebe4be3f1cb 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h
> @@ -301,6 +301,7 @@ struct fuse_file_lock {
> * FOPEN_CACHE_DIR: allow caching this directory
> * FOPEN_STREAM: the file is stream-like (no file position at all)
> * FOPEN_NOFLUSH: don't flush data cache on close (unless FUSE_WRITEBACK_CACHE)
> + * FOPEN_FILE_CREATED: the file was actually created
> */
> #define FOPEN_DIRECT_IO (1 << 0)
> #define FOPEN_KEEP_CACHE (1 << 1)
> @@ -308,6 +309,7 @@ struct fuse_file_lock {
> #define FOPEN_CACHE_DIR (1 << 3)
> #define FOPEN_STREAM (1 << 4)
> #define FOPEN_NOFLUSH (1 << 5)
> +#define FOPEN_FILE_CREATED (1 << 6)
>
> /**
> * INIT request/reply flags
> @@ -537,6 +539,7 @@ enum fuse_opcode {
> FUSE_SETUPMAPPING = 48,
> FUSE_REMOVEMAPPING = 49,
> FUSE_SYNCFS = 50,
> + FUSE_CREATE_EXT = 51,
I am wondering if we really have to introduce a new opcode for this. Both
FUSE_CREATE and FUSE_CREATE_EXT prepare and send fuse_create_in{} and
expect fuse_entry_out and fuse_open_out in response. So no new structures
are being added. Only thing FUSE_CREATE_EXT does extra is that it also
reports back whether file was actually created or not.
May be instead of adding an new fuse_opcode, we could simply add a
new flag which we send in fuse_create_in and that reqeusts to report
if file was created or not. This is along the lines of
FUSE_OPEN_KILL_SUIDGID.
So say, a new flag FUSE_OPEN_REPORT_CREATE flag. Which we will set in
fuse_create_in->open_flags. If file server sees this flag is set, it
knows that it needs to set FOPEN_FILE_CREATED flag in response.
To me creating a new flag FUSE_OPEN_REPORT_CREATE seems better instead
of adding a new opcode.
Thanks
Vivek
>
> /* CUSE specific operations */
> CUSE_INIT = 4096,
> --
> 2.17.1
>
