[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 14/25] vfs: make remap_file_range functions take and return bytes completed

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 09:47:00AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:14 AM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong at oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong at oracle.com>
> >
> > Change the remap_file_range functions to take a number of bytes to
> > operate upon and return the number of bytes they operated on.  This is a
> > requirement for allowing fs implementations to return short clone/dedupe
> > results to the user, which will enable us to obey resource limits in a
> > graceful manner.
> >
> > A subsequent patch will enable copy_file_range to signal to the
> > ->clone_file_range implementation that it can handle a short length,
> > which will be returned in the function's return value.  Neither clone
> > ioctl can take advantage of this, alas.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong at oracle.com>
> > ---
> [...]
> > @@ -141,8 +142,8 @@ static int ovl_copy_up_data(struct path *old, struct path *new, loff_t len)
> >         }
> >
> >         /* Try to use clone_file_range to clone up within the same fs */
> > -       error = do_clone_file_range(old_file, 0, new_file, 0, len);
> > -       if (!error)
> > +       cloned = do_clone_file_range(old_file, 0, new_file, 0, len);
> > +       if (cloned == len)
> >                 goto out;
> >         /* Couldn't clone, so now we try to copy the data */
> >         error = 0;
> 
> This error = 0 not needed anymore, but not a big deal...

Fixed.

> > diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/file.c b/fs/overlayfs/file.c
> > index 693bd0620a81..c8c890c22898 100644
> > --- a/fs/overlayfs/file.c
> > +++ b/fs/overlayfs/file.c
> > @@ -434,14 +434,14 @@ enum ovl_copyop {
> >         OVL_DEDUPE,
> >  };
> >
> > -static ssize_t ovl_copyfile(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> > +static loff_t ovl_copyfile(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> >                             struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out,
> > -                           u64 len, unsigned int flags, enum ovl_copyop op)
> > +                           loff_t len, unsigned int flags, enum ovl_copyop op)
> >  {
> >         struct inode *inode_out = file_inode(file_out);
> >         struct fd real_in, real_out;
> >         const struct cred *old_cred;
> > -       ssize_t ret;
> > +       loff_t ret;
> >
> >         ret = ovl_real_fdget(file_out, &real_out);
> >         if (ret)
> > @@ -489,9 +489,9 @@ static ssize_t ovl_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> >                             OVL_COPY);
> >  }
> >
> > -static int ovl_remap_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> > -                               struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out,
> > -                               u64 len, unsigned int flags)
> > +static loff_t ovl_remap_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> > +                                  struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out,
> > +                                  loff_t len, unsigned int flags)
> >  {
> >         enum ovl_copyop op;
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c
> > index 917934770b08..f43b0620afd4 100644
> > --- a/fs/read_write.c
> > +++ b/fs/read_write.c
> > @@ -1589,10 +1589,13 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> >          * more efficient if both clone and copy are supported (e.g. NFS).
> >          */
> >         if (file_in->f_op->remap_file_range) {
> > -               ret = file_in->f_op->remap_file_range(file_in, pos_in,
> > -                               file_out, pos_out, len, 0);
> > -               if (ret == 0) {
> > -                       ret = len;
> > +               s64 cloned;
> 
> loff_t?

Fixed.

> > +
> > +               cloned = file_in->f_op->remap_file_range(file_in, pos_in,
> > +                               file_out, pos_out,
> > +                               min_t(loff_t, MAX_RW_COUNT, len), 0);
> > +               if (cloned >= 0) {
> > +                       ret = cloned;
> >                         goto done;
> >                 }
> >         }
> 
> Commit message wasn't clear enough on the behavior of copy_file_range()
> before and after the patch IMO. Maybe it would be better to pospone this
> semantic change to the RFR_SHORTEN patch and keep if (cloned == len)
> in this patch?

There shouldn't be any behavior change here -- all implementations
return a negative error code or the length that was passed in.  I'll
clarify that in the commit message.

--D

> Thanks,
> Amir.