On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 17:08, Bernd Schubert <bschubert@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Take a shared lock in fuse_cache_write_iter. > > Cc: Hao Xu <howeyxu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Dharmendra Singh <dsingh@xxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Bernd Schubert <bschubert@xxxxxxx> > --- > fs/fuse/file.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c > index a16f9b6888de..905ce3bb0047 100644 > --- a/fs/fuse/file.c > +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c > @@ -1314,9 +1314,10 @@ static bool fuse_dio_wr_exclusive_lock(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from > struct file *file = iocb->ki_filp; > struct fuse_file *ff = file->private_data; > > - return !(ff->open_flags & FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES) || > - iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_APPEND || > - fuse_direct_write_extending_i_size(iocb, from); > + return ((!(iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DIRECT)) || > + (!(ff->open_flags & FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES)) || Why the extra parenthesis around the negation in the above two conditions? So this condition will always be true at this point when called from fuse_cache_write_iter()? If so, you need to explain in the commit message why are you doing this at this point (e.g. future patches depend on this). Thanks, Miklos
