On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 01:23:19PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
>
> On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:06 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?
>
> What if the client specifies FILE_SYNC? The spec doesn't allow the server to return UNSTABLE in that situation.
Of course, sorry for being unclear. I was just wondering if there's
some particular reason we're not using NFS_UNSTABLE when the client
allows it.
But "because it's easier" is a fine answer. We can always add that
later if it turns out to be useful.
--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
