Hi Trond,
On 12/04/2016 06:10 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> We should only care about checking the attributes if the page cache
> is marked as dubious (using NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE) and the
> NFS_INO_REVAL_FORCED flag is set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfs/file.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c b/fs/nfs/file.c
> index 9ea85ae23c32..64c11f399b3d 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/file.c
> @@ -102,8 +102,11 @@ static int nfs_revalidate_file_size(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> {
> struct nfs_server *server = NFS_SERVER(inode);
> struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(inode);
> + const unsigned long force_reval = NFS_INO_REVAL_PAGECACHE|NFS_INO_REVAL_FORCED;
Would it make sense to declare this in a header file somewhere, rather than repeating this in file.c and inode.c? (and any other places we might need to "force_reval" in the future?)
Anna
> + unsigned long cache_validity = nfsi->cache_validity;
>
> - if (nfs_have_delegated_attributes(inode))
> + if (NFS_PROTO(inode)->have_delegation(inode, FMODE_READ) &&
> + (cache_validity & force_reval) != force_reval)
> goto out_noreval;
>
> if (filp->f_flags & O_DIRECT)
>
--
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
