Re: [PATCH 0/5] fuse: close file synchronously
From: Miklos Szeredi
Date: Mon Apr 15 2013 - 11:30:52 EST
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> For example doing a readlink() on a magic symlink under /proc
> shouldn't result in a synchronous call to a fuse filesystem. Making
> fput() synchronous may actually end up doing that (even if it's not
> very likely).
Thinking about this a bit more. As it is it sounds wrong to rely on a
synchronous release, when in fact release is just not synchronous, as
indicated by the above example. Maybe it's the proc code that's buggy
and shouldn't do get_file/fput because everyone is assuming release
being synchronous with close(). Don't know.
Let's approach it from the other direction: what if you give back the
write lease on the first flush? It will probably work fine for 99% of
cases, since no other writes are going to happen after the first
flush. For the remaining cases you'll just have to reacquire the
lease when a write happens after the flush. I guess performance-wise
that will not be an issue, but I may be wrong.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/