On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:29:29PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:16:52PM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
>
> > >>Instead of trying to find a non-conflicting O_LOV_DELAY_CREATE flag
> > >>or define a Lustre-specific flag that isn't of use to most/any other
> > >>filesystems, use (O_NOCTTY|FASYNC) as the new value. These flag
> > >>are not meaningful for newly-created regular files and should be
> > >>OK since O_LOV_DELAY_CREATE is only meaningful for new files.
>
> *shrug*
>
> I can live with that; it's a kludge, but it's less broken than that
> explicit constant - that one is a non-starter, since O_... flag
> values are arch-dependent.
>
> I have another question about what you are doing there - the games
> you are playing with crw_pos. Is there any reason not to have ->ki_pos
> updated immediately in lustre_generic_file_read()/lustre_generic_file_write()?
>
> These two are the only places in the entire tree where
> generic_file_aio_{read,write}() does *not* have ppos argument
> equal to &iocb->ki_pos and I would very much prefer to kill the
> sucker off.
Ugh... Sorry, I misread that code. Why the devil do you have the
pos argument passed to lustre_generic_file_{read,write}() by address,
when both proceed to dereference it and pass the value on?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
