On 2/7/24 10:13 PM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
>
>
> On 2/7/24 14:44, Jingbo Xu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/7/24 9:38 PM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/6/24 10:20, Jingbo Xu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/1/24 7:08 AM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
>>>>> @@ -1591,10 +1616,10 @@ static ssize_t fuse_direct_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
>>>>> else {
>>>>> inode_lock_shared(inode);
>>>>>
>>>>> - /* A race with truncate might have come up as the decision for
>>>>> - * the lock type was done without holding the lock, check again.
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Previous check was without any lock and might have raced.
>>>>> */
>>
>>
>>>>> - if (fuse_direct_write_extending_i_size(iocb, from)) {
>>>>> + if (fuse_dio_wr_exclusive_lock(iocb, from)) {
>>>> ^
>>
>> I mean, in patch 2/5
>>
>>> - if (fuse_direct_write_extending_i_size(iocb, from)) {
>>> + if (fuse_io_past_eof(iocb, from)) {
>>
>> is better, otherwise it's not an equivalent change.
>
> Ah thanks, good catch! Now I see what you mean. Yeah, we can switch to
> fuse_io_past_eof() here. And yeah, 3/5 changes it back.
> Fortunately there is actually not much harm, as
> fuse_dio_wr_exclusive_lock also calls into fuse_io_past_eof.
>
Yeah fortunately we needn't retest it as patch 3/5 changes it back.
The whole series is good. The comment is just from per-patch basis.
Thanks,
Jingbo
