Re: [PATCH 0/5] fuse: handle release synchronously (v4)

From: Miklos Szeredi
Date: Tue Sep 30 2014 - 15:19:43 EST

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:04:08PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Anand Avati <avati@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > In general that sounds reasonable. The problem (as described in the original
> > thread, at
> From a quick look at that thread, the solution is clear: you *must*
> flush your write buffers in the "flush" function.
> The fact that you must flush write buffers multiple times if people
> have done "dup()" is a complete non-issue. Just flush them each time.
> There is no "how do I differentiate the first flush and
> the second flush?" The answer is that you don't, and that you MUST
> NOT. You need to flush on both (or more). Trying to distinguish first
> vs second is broken, and would be wrogn *anyway*. There is no possible
> situation where it could validaly matter, and you simply cannot tell.
> Don't do any data structure cleanups, that's for "release()". But yes,
> you do have to flush write buffers at flush time (and return IO errors
> if they happen). That's very much the point of flush.

What about flock(2), FL_SETLEASE, etc semantics (which are the sane ones,
compared to the POSIX locks shit which mandates release of lock on each close(2)
instead of "when all [duplicate] descriptors have been closed")?

You have to do that from ->release(), there's no question about that. And while
I haven't looked at the wording of the standards, doing that synchronously with
the last close is a pretty decent thing to expect.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at