On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 08:18:15AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 2022-10-19 at 13:13 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 06:57:00AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > This patchset is intended to clean up the handling of the i_version > > > counter by nfsd. Most of the changes are to internal interfaces. > > > > > > This set is not intended to address crash resilience, or the fact that > > > the counter is bumped before a change and not after. I intend to tackle > > > those in follow-on patchsets. > > > > > > My intention is to get this series included into linux-next soon, with > > > an eye toward merging most of it during the v6.2 merge window. The last > > > patch in the series is probably not suitable for merge as-is, at least > > > until we sort out the semantics we want to present to userland for it. > > > > Over the course of the series I struggled a bit - and sorry for losing > > focus - with what i_version is supposed to represent for userspace. So I > > would support not exposing it to userspace before that. But that > > shouldn't affect your other changes iiuc. > > Thanks Christian, > > It has been a real struggle to nail this down, and yeah I too am not > planning to expose this to userland until we have this much better > defined. Patch #9 is just to give you an idea of what this would > ultimately look like. I intend to re-post the first 8 patches with an > eye toward merge in v6.2, once we've settled on the naming. On that > note... > > I believe you had mentioned that you didn't like STATX_CHANGE_ATTR for > the name, and suggested STATX_I_VERSION (or something similar), which I > later shortened to STATX_VERSION. > > Dave C. objected to STATX_VERSION, as "version" fields in a struct > usually refer to the version of the struct itself rather than the > version of the thing it describes. It also sort of implies a monotonic > counter, and I'm not ready to require that just yet. > > What about STATX_CHANGE for the name (with corresponding names for the > field and other flags)? That drops the redundant "_ATTR" postfix, while > being sufficiently vague to allow for alternative implementations in the > future. > > Do you (or anyone else) have other suggestions for a name? Welllll it's really a u32 whose value doesn't have any intrinsic meaning other than "if (value_now != value_before) flush_cache();" right? I think it really only tracks changes to file data, right? STATX_CHANGE_COOKIE (wait, does this cookie augment i_ctime?) STATX_MOD_COOKIE (...or just file modifications/i_mtime?) STATX_MONITOR_COOKIE (...what are we monitoring??) STATX_MON_COOKIE STATX_COOKIE_MON STATX_COOKIE_MONSTER There we go. ;) In seriousness, I'd probably go with one of the first two. I wouldn't be opposed to the last one, either, but others may disagree. ;) --D > -- > Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
