From: Dave Chinner <[email protected]>
To: Christian Brauner <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Jan Kara <[email protected]>,
Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>, Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
Alexander Viro <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC]: fs: claw back a few FMODE_* bits
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:18:06 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240327-begibt-wacht-b9b9f4d1145a@brauner>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 05:45:09PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> There's a bunch of flags that are purely based on what the file
> operations support while also never being conditionally set or unset.
> IOW, they're not subject to change for individual file opens. Imho, such
> flags don't need to live in f_mode they might as well live in the fops
> structs itself. And the fops struct already has that lonely
> mmap_supported_flags member. We might as well turn that into a generic
> fops_flags member and move a few flags from FMODE_* space into FOP_*
> space. That gets us four FMODE_* bits back and the ability for new
> static flags that are about file ops to not have to live in FMODE_*
> space but in their own FOP_* space. It's not the most beautiful thing
> ever but it gets the job done. Yes, there'll be an additional pointer
> chase but hopefully that won't matter for these flags.
>
> If this is palatable I suspect there's a few more we can move into there
> and that we can also redirect new flag suggestions that follow this
> pattern into the fops_flags field instead of f_mode. As of yet untested.
>
> (Fwiw, FMODE_NOACCOUNT and FMODE_BACKING could live in fops_flags as
> well because they're also completely static but they aren't really
> about file operations so they're better suited for FMODE_* imho.)
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <[email protected]>
.....
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> index 632653e00906..d13e21eb9a3c 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> @@ -1230,8 +1230,7 @@ xfs_file_open(
> {
> if (xfs_is_shutdown(XFS_M(inode->i_sb)))
> return -EIO;
> - file->f_mode |= FMODE_NOWAIT | FMODE_BUF_RASYNC | FMODE_BUF_WASYNC |
> - FMODE_DIO_PARALLEL_WRITE | FMODE_CAN_ODIRECT;
> + file->f_mode |= FMODE_NOWAIT | FMODE_CAN_ODIRECT;
> return generic_file_open(inode, file);
> }
>
> @@ -1490,7 +1489,6 @@ const struct file_operations xfs_file_operations = {
> .compat_ioctl = xfs_file_compat_ioctl,
> #endif
> .mmap = xfs_file_mmap,
> - .mmap_supported_flags = MAP_SYNC,
> .open = xfs_file_open,
> .release = xfs_file_release,
> .fsync = xfs_file_fsync,
> @@ -1498,6 +1496,8 @@ const struct file_operations xfs_file_operations = {
> .fallocate = xfs_file_fallocate,
> .fadvise = xfs_file_fadvise,
> .remap_file_range = xfs_file_remap_range,
> + .fops_flags = FOP_MMAP_SYNC | FOP_BUF_RASYNC | FOP_BUF_WASYNC |
> + FOP_DIO_PARALLEL_WRITE,
> };
>
> const struct file_operations xfs_dir_file_operations = {
> @@ -1510,4 +1510,6 @@ const struct file_operations xfs_dir_file_operations = {
> .compat_ioctl = xfs_file_compat_ioctl,
> #endif
> .fsync = xfs_dir_fsync,
> + .fops_flags = FOP_MMAP_SYNC | FOP_BUF_RASYNC | FOP_BUF_WASYNC |
> + FOP_DIO_PARALLEL_WRITE,
> };
Why do we need to set any of these for directory operations now that
we have a clear choice? i.e. we can't mmap directories, and the rest
of these flags are for read() and write() operations which we also
can't do on directories...
....
> @@ -1024,7 +1024,7 @@ int io_write(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
>
> /* File path supports NOWAIT for non-direct_IO only for block devices. */
> if (!(kiocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DIRECT) &&
> - !(kiocb->ki_filp->f_mode & FMODE_BUF_WASYNC) &&
> + !fops_buf_wasync(kiocb->ki_filp) &&
> (req->flags & REQ_F_ISREG))
> goto copy_iov;
You should probably also fix that comment - WASYNC is set when the
filesystem supports NOWAIT for buffered writes.
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
[email protected]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-28 1:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-27 16:45 [PATCH] [RFC]: fs: claw back a few FMODE_* bits Christian Brauner
2024-03-27 17:19 ` Jens Axboe
2024-03-28 9:40 ` Christian Brauner
2024-03-28 1:18 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2024-03-28 5:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-03-28 8:06 ` Christian Brauner
2024-03-28 8:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-03-28 9:41 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-01 23:16 ` Dave Chinner
2024-03-28 5:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-03-28 9:29 ` Christian Brauner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox