On 8/28/23 12:42, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
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).
Oh, thanks for spotting, the double parenthesis were accidentally.
Although I don't think it would have an effect, it just results in
return ((!(condition1)) || ...
I.e. does not change the condition itself?
Anyway, yeah, agreed on your comment in the patch before, with one
condition per line it becomes easier to read and avoids parenthesis. I
had just tried to keep the code as it is to make the patch easier to read.
Thanks,
Bernd
