J. Bruce Fields 写道: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:38:33AM +0800, Bian Naimeng wrote: >> >> J. Bruce Fields 写道: >>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 04:09:28PM +0800, Bian Naimeng wrote: >>>> When offset larger than LLONG_MAX, it's better to sync all the data of file >>>> than return nfserr_inval. >>> I believe the current behavior is correct. >>> >>> See http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=128200558207974&w=2 for a pynfs-side >>> fix. >>> >> Thanks. >> >> But why we must return nfserr_inval at nfs layer, the commitarg.offset and >> writearg.offset are the U64 type, i think maybe we should set the vfs as the >> authority not nfs for whether the offset is valid when it over 2^63-1. > > Hm, good question. I took a quick look at vfs_fsync_range() and its > other callers but couldn't immediately tell whether checking the > validity of the range is its responsibility or the caller's. > > If you can demonstrate that vfs_fsync_range() takes responsibility for > the range-checking, then I'd be fine with removing the checks here. > It looks like that vfs_fsync_range has not the range-checking, but i think vfs_fsync_range should support the function of range-checking. And NFSv4 write procedure will do the range-checking at rw_verify_area. -- Regards Bian Naimeng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
