...
Helper function atomic_write_valid() can be used by FSes to verify
compliant writes.
Signed-off-by: Prasad Singamsetty <prasad.singamsetty@xxxxxxxxxx>
#jpg: merge into single patch and much rewrite
^^^ this might be a miss I guess.
I'm not sure what you mean. Here I am just briefly commenting on much
changes which I made.
Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/aio.c | 8 ++++----
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 2 +-
fs/read_write.c | 2 +-
include/linux/fs.h | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
include/uapi/linux/fs.h | 5 ++++-
io_uring/rw.c | 4 ++--
6 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/aio.c b/fs/aio.c
index bb2ff48991f3..21bcbc076fd0 100644
--- a/fs/aio.c
+++ b/fs/aio.c
@@ -1502,7 +1502,7 @@ static void aio_complete_rw(struct kiocb *kiocb, long res)
iocb_put(iocb);
}
-static int aio_prep_rw(struct kiocb *req, const struct iocb *iocb)
+static int aio_prep_rw(struct kiocb *req, const struct iocb *iocb, int type)
maybe rw_type?
ok
{
int ret;
@@ -1528,7 +1528,7 @@ static int aio_prep_rw(struct kiocb *req, const struct iocb *iocb)
} else
...
+
/* 32bit hashes as llseek() offset (for directories) */
#define FMODE_32BITHASH ((__force fmode_t)0x200)
/* 64bit hashes as llseek() offset (for directories) */
@@ -328,6 +333,7 @@ enum rw_hint {
#define IOCB_SYNC (__force int) RWF_SYNC
#define IOCB_NOWAIT (__force int) RWF_NOWAIT
#define IOCB_APPEND (__force int) RWF_APPEND
+#define IOCB_ATOMIC (__force int) RWF_ATOMIC
You might also want to add this definition in here too
#define TRACE_IOCB_STRINGS \
<...>
<...>
{ IOCB_ATOMIC, "ATOMIC" }
ok
I suppose that new flag RWF_NOAPPEND in linux-next also should have this
+static inline bool atomic_write_valid(loff_t pos, struct iov_iter *iter,
+ unsigned int unit_min, unsigned int unit_max)
+{
+ size_t len = iov_iter_count(iter);
+
+ if (!iter_is_ubuf(iter))
+ return false;
There is no mention about this limitation in the commit message of this
patch. Maybe it will be good to capture why this limitation to only
support ubuf and/or any plans to lift this restriction in future
in the commit message?
ok, I can mention this in the commit message.
+
+ if (len == unit_min || len == unit_max) {
+ /* ok if exactly min or max */
+ } else if (len < unit_min || len > unit_max) {
+ return false;
+ } else if (!is_power_of_2(len)) {
+ return false;
+ }
Checking for len == unit_min || len == unit_max is redundant when
unit_min and unit_max are already power of 2.
Sure, but it was an optimization, considering that typically we will be
issuing unit_max in anticipated FS scenario.
Anyway, I will be changing this according to an earlier comment.
Thanks,
John
