Re: [PATCH-RFC-RESEND 5/9] nfs42: add .copy_range file operation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 04:16:46PM +0800, Peng Tao wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Peng Tao <tao.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  fs/nfs/nfs4file.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c
>> index dcd39d4..c335cb0 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c
>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>>   *  Copyright (C) 1992  Rick Sladkey
>>   */
>>  #include <linux/fs.h>
>> +#include <linux/file.h>
>>  #include <linux/falloc.h>
>>  #include <linux/nfs_fs.h>
>>  #include "internal.h"
>> @@ -166,6 +167,54 @@ static long nfs42_fallocate(struct file *filep, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t
>>               return nfs42_proc_deallocate(filep, offset, len);
>>       return nfs42_proc_allocate(filep, offset, len);
>>  }
>> +
>> +static noinline int
>> +nfs42_file_clone_range(struct file *src_file, struct file *dst_file,
>> +                    loff_t src_off, size_t dst_off, loff_t count)
>> +{
>> +     struct inode *dst_inode = file_inode(dst_file);
>> +     struct inode *src_inode = file_inode(src_file);
>> +     int ret;
>> +
>> +     /* src and dst must be different files */
>> +     if (src_inode == dst_inode)
>> +             return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +     /* XXX: do we lock at all? what if server needs CB_RECALL_LAYOUT? */
>> +     if (dst_inode < src_inode) {
>> +             mutex_lock_nested(&dst_inode->i_mutex, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
>> +             mutex_lock_nested(&src_inode->i_mutex, I_MUTEX_CHILD);
>> +     } else {
>> +             mutex_lock_nested(&src_inode->i_mutex, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
>> +             mutex_lock_nested(&dst_inode->i_mutex, I_MUTEX_CHILD);
>> +     }
>
> Is that safe? Between two operations, the inode code be reclaimed
> and re-instantiated, resulting in the second operation having a
> different locking order for the same files compared to the
> first operation...
Both files are still open so I don't think we need to worry about
inode going away.

>
>> +out_unlock:
>> +     if (dst_inode < src_inode) {
>> +             mutex_unlock(&src_inode->i_mutex);
>> +             mutex_unlock(&dst_inode->i_mutex);
>> +     } else {
>> +             mutex_unlock(&dst_inode->i_mutex);
>> +             mutex_unlock(&src_inode->i_mutex);
>> +     }
>
> You don't have to care about lock order on unlock.
Good point!

Thanks,
Tao
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux