On 8/30/23 12:57, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 18:11, Bernd Schubert <bschubert@xxxxxxx> wrote:This is just a preparation to avoid code duplication in the next commit. Cc: Hao Xu <howeyxu@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Dharmendra Singh <dsingh@xxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Bernd Schubert <bschubert@xxxxxxx> --- fs/fuse/file.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c index b1b9f2b9a37d..6b8b9512c336 100644 --- a/fs/fuse/file.c +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c @@ -1298,6 +1298,37 @@ static ssize_t fuse_perform_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *ii) return res; } +static bool fuse_io_past_eof(struct kiocb *iocb, + struct iov_iter *iter) +{ + struct inode *inode = file_inode(iocb->ki_filp); + + return iocb->ki_pos + iov_iter_count(iter) > i_size_read(inode); +} + +/* + * @return true if an exclusive lock direct IO writes is needed + */ +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; + + /* server side has to advise that it supports parallel dio writes */ + if (!(ff->open_flags & FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES)) + return false;You got the return values the wrong way around. I can fix this, no need to resend.
Ooops, sorry! Do you mind to take this series for next merge round? I obviously didn't test the latest series yet and I would like to first test performance and do several rounds of xfs tests. That should be done by Monday, but might be a bit late for 6.6
Thanks, Bernd
