On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 16:21, Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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? It doesn't change the condition, but degrades readability. Thanks, Miklos
