On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:59:07 +0400 Pavel Shilovsky <piastryyy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 20 апреля 2012 г. 1:06 пользователь Dan Carpenter > <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> написал: > > This test is always true so it means we revalidate the length every > > time, which generates more network traffic. This was introduced in > > 06222e491e "fs: handle SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA properly in all fs's that > > define their own llseek". > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Josef, there were three other places that had this same problem but I > > think they've all been fixed now. Except that I had a question about > > nfs_file_llseek(). Isn't that reversed? It seems like it only > > revalidates when it's not supposed to. I chose to copy what > > fuse_file_llseek() does instead. > > > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c > > index d342128..97d26c7 100644 > > --- a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c > > +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c > > @@ -695,7 +695,7 @@ static loff_t cifs_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int origin) > > * origin == SEEK_END || SEEK_DATA || SEEK_HOLE => we must revalidate > > * the cached file length > > */ > > - if (origin != SEEK_SET || origin != SEEK_CUR) { > > + if (origin == SEEK_SET || origin == SEEK_CUR) { > > int rc; > > struct inode *inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode; > > > > In this case the semantic contradict the comment above. May be it > should be "if (origin != SEEK_SET && origin != SEEK_CUR)"? > Agreed, I think Pavel is correct here. The stuff inside the if block revalidates the file size, and we only need to do that if whence is not SEEK_SET or SEEK_CUR. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html