On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:50:56AM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote: > On Mon 28 Oct 2013 05:40:30 PM EDT, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:57:25AM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote: > >> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c > >> index 419572f..3210c6f 100644 > >> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c > >> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c > >> @@ -1028,6 +1028,42 @@ nfsd4_write(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate, > >> return status; > >> } > >> > >> +static __be32 > >> +nfsd4_write_plus_hole(struct file *file, struct nfsd4_write_plus *writeplus, > >> + struct net *net) > >> +{ > >> + __be32 status; > >> + > >> + status = nfsd4_vfs_fallocate(file, writeplus->wp_allocated, > >> + writeplus->wp_offset, writeplus->wp_length); > >> + if (status == nfs_ok) { > >> + writeplus->wp_res.wr_stid = NULL; > >> + writeplus->wp_res.wr_bytes_written = writeplus->wp_length; > >> + writeplus->wp_res.wr_stable_how = NFS_FILE_SYNC; > > > > Do we need to sync? > > I did the sync in nfsd4_vfs_fallocate (below), but I can move it if > that would make more sense. What I meant was--why are we doing a sync at all, instead of returning NFS_UNSTABLE and making the client commit? Honest question, I haven't thought about which is best. --b. -- 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