On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:00 PM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 10:11:48AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:04 PM Olga Kornievskaia > > <olga.kornievskaia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Relax the condition that input files must be from the same > > > file systems. > > > > > > Add checks that input parameters adhere semantics. > > > > > > If no copy_file_range() support is found, then do generic > > > checks for the unsupported page cache ranges, LFS, limits, > > > and clear setuid/setgid if not running as root before calling > > > do_splice_direct(). Update atime,ctime,mtime afterwards. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > This patch is either going to bring you down or make you stronger ;-) > > > > This is not how its done. Behavior change and refactoring mixed into > > one patch is wrong for several reasons. And when you relax same sb > > check you need to restrict it inside filesystems, like your previous patch > > did. > ..... > > In any case, I hear that Dave is neck deep in fixing copy_file_range() > > so changes to this function should be collaborated with him. Or better > > yet, wait until he posts his fixes and carry on from there. > > Yeah, because I've heard nothing for a month and this is kinda > important Dave I think that's unfair. It is important. NFS is actually the file system that needed VFS support for cross fs copy_file_range and I was working on it. If you were in doubt, you could have emailed and asked me. I'm unsure now what does this mean. I have a patch series with a VFS patch that went thru the extensive review (people spend time on it) and an NFS patch series that depends on it that is ready for the upstream push. Are you saying that the VFS patch is no longer welcomed and thus NFS series is no longer viable either? , I have a series of 8-9 patches that make all the fixes we > need, push the cross-filesystem checks down into the filesystems, > and let filesystems handle the fallback to a splice based copy > themselves (because there are way more fallback cases than just > EOPNOPSUPP and EXDEV). Are you saying it is each individual filesystem responsibility to fallback on splice? Isn't that a step backwards? Each individual filesystem is going to implement the same code of calling do_splice_direct() to do the functionally that could and should be in VFS? > > I also have a patch for the man page that document all the missing > failure cases, and document where things are filesystem specific or > not. > > And I also have a fstests patch that exercises all the failure cases > so that all filesystems will end up behaving the same way for all > the same cases they should. > > I'm still sorting out the fstests patch (it requires changes > to xfs_io's copy-range command) so I've got some confidence that the > code actually does what it says in the man page, but I should have > that sorted in a couple of days. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
