On Thu, 2019-04-11 at 12:27 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> When VFS calls copy_file_range on a 4.0 mount (and when in and out
> file is the same), we need to return ENOTSUPP instead of EINVAL.
> Since no COPY operation is defined in 4.0, then like 3.0, it should
> fallback to doing do_splice_direct().
>
> Otherwise xfstest generic/075,091,112,263 fail.
>
> Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfs/nfs4file.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c
> index 45b2322..9a222b0 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c
> @@ -133,6 +133,12 @@ static ssize_t nfs4_copy_file_range(struct file
> *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> struct file *file_out, loff_t
> pos_out,
> size_t count, unsigned int flags)
> {
> + struct nfs_server *server = NFS_SERVER(file_inode(file_in);
> + struct nfs_client *client = server->nfs_client;
> +
> + if (client->cl_minorversion < 1)
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> if (file_inode(file_in) == file_inode(file_out))
> return -EINVAL;
> return nfs42_proc_copy(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out,
> count);
Let's please just move the test for NFS_CAP_COPY from nfs42_proc_copy()
into the above function.
BTW: Why do we return -EINVAL in the file_in == file_out case? Is there
any reason why we shouldn't just return EOPNOTSUPP there too in order
to let splice() fulfil the operation?
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
