> > 
quoted text
> > We discussed this yesterday.  My conclusion was (which I still think
> > is true) that it can't be fixed in page_cache_pipe_buf_confirm(),
> > because due to current practice of not setting PG_error for I/O errors
> > for read, it is impossible to distinguish between a never-been-uptodate
> > page and a was-uptodate-before-invalidation page.
> 
> Umm. The regular read does this quite well. If something isn't up-to-date, 
> it tries a synchronous read. Once.

Exactly.  And if page_cache_pipe_buf_confirm() could do a synchronous
re-read of the page, that would work.  But it can't, because it only
has the page and not the file.

quoted text
> > And it's not just an nfsd issue.  Userspace might also expect that if
> > a zero count is returned, that means it went beyond EOF, and not that
> > it should retry the splice, maybe it has better luck this time.
> 
> You're totally ignoring the real issue - user space that uses splice() 
> *knows* that it uses splice(). It's a private mmap(). 
> 
> NFSD, on the other hand, is supposed to act as NFSD. I think that 
> currently it assumes that nobody else modifies the files, which is 
> reasonable, but breaks with FUSE.

Not so.  Why couldn't someone modify an ext3 file, while nfsd is
holding the page?  Is that wrong?  I don't know, but it's not fuse
specific.

quoted text
> But do you see? That's a NFSD/FUSE issue, not a splice one!

No, I think you are wrong.

Miklos
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/