On Tue 29 Oct 2013 09:06:49 AM EDT, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> 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.
No reason other than it seemed easier for my initial implementation.
>
> --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
