similar to: [PATCH] virtiofs: Remove set but not used variable 'fc'

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:15:45PM +0800, zhengbin wrote: > Move the static keyword to the front of declarations, which resolves > compiler warnings when building with "W=1": > > fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c:687:1: warning: ?static? is not at beginning of declaration [-Wold-style-declaration] > const static struct virtio_device_id id_table[] = { > ^ >

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 05:26:41PM +0800, zhengbin wrote: > Move the static keyword to the front of declarations. Please mention why this change is necessary in the commit description. > > Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci at huawei.com> > Signed-off-by: zhengbin <zhengbin13 at huawei.com> > --- > fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+),

fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c:983:20: warning: variable fc set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] It is not used since commit 7ee1e2e631db ("virtiofs: No need to check fpq->connected state") Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing at huawei.com> --- fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c index

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:15:45PM +0800, zhengbin wrote: > Move the static keyword to the front of declarations, which resolves > compiler warnings when building with "W=1": > > fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c:687:1: warning: ?static? is not at beginning of declaration [-Wold-style-declaration] > const static struct virtio_device_id id_table[] = { > ^ >

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:55:49AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: [..] > What's with all of the TODOs? Some of these are really scary, > looks like they need to be figured out before this is merged. Hi Michael, One of the issue I noticed is races w.r.t device removal and super block initialization. I am about to post a set of patches which take care of these races and also get rid of

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 04:19:31PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> > > Michael, > > Here's a v6 of the virtiofs code (fuse.git#virtiofs-v6). I think we've > addressed all your comments. > > Would you mind giving it another look, and if you're satisfied acking this > patch? > > Thanks, > Miklos

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:15:15PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:55:49AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > [..] > > What's with all of the TODOs? Some of these are really scary, > > looks like they need to be figured out before this is merged. > > Hi Michael, > > One of the issue I noticed is races w.r.t device removal and super >

From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> [ Upstream commit bb737bbe48bea9854455cb61ea1dc06e92ce586c ] In virtiofs (unlike in regular fuse) processing of async replies is serialized. This can result in a deadlock in rare corner cases when there's a circular dependency between the completion of two or more async replies. Such a deadlock can be reproduced with xfstests:generic/503 if

From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> [ Upstream commit bb737bbe48bea9854455cb61ea1dc06e92ce586c ] In virtiofs (unlike in regular fuse) processing of async replies is serialized. This can result in a deadlock in rare corner cases when there's a circular dependency between the completion of two or more async replies. Such a deadlock can be reproduced with xfstests:generic/503 if

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 01:42:02PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> > > Add a basic file system module for virtio-fs. This does not yet contain > shared data support between host and guest or metadata coherency speedups. > However it is already significantly faster than virtio-9p. > > Design Overview > ===============

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 01:42:02PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> > > Add a basic file system module for virtio-fs. This does not yet contain > shared data support between host and guest or metadata coherency speedups. > However it is already significantly faster than virtio-9p. > > Design Overview > ===============

On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 01:03:09PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:48:56PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > This object is used both by fuse_connection as well virt device. So make > > this object reference counted and that makes it easy to define life cycle > > of the object. > > > > Now deivce can be removed while filesystem is still

In error path we are calling fuse_request_end() but we need to clear FR_SENT bit as well as remove request from processing queue. Otherwise fuse_request_end() triggers a warning as well as other issues show up. Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> --- fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c index

In request submission path it is possible that virtqueue is already gone due to driver->remove(). So do not access it in dev_dbg(). Use pr_debug() instead. If virtuqueue is gone, this will result in NULL pointer deference. Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> --- fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git

Hi, We have couple of places which can result in deadlock. This patch series fixes these. We can be called with fc->bg_lock (for background requests) while submitting a request. This leads to two constraints. - We can't end requests in submitter's context and call fuse_end_request() as it tries to take fc->bg_lock as well. So queue these requests on a list and use a worker to

There expect the 'static' keyword to come first in a declaration, and we get warnings like this with "make W=1": fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c:687:1: warning: 'static' is not at beginning of declaration [-Wold-style-declaration] fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c:692:1: warning: 'static' is not at beginning of declaration [-Wold-style-declaration] fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c:1029:1: warning:

This object is used both by fuse_connection as well virt device. So make this object reference counted and that makes it easy to define life cycle of the object. Now deivce can be removed while filesystem is still mounted. This will cleanup all the virtqueues but virtio_fs object will still be around and will be cleaned when filesystem is unmounted and sb/fc drops its reference. Removing a

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:48:56PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > This object is used both by fuse_connection as well virt device. So make > this object reference counted and that makes it easy to define life cycle > of the object. > > Now deivce can be removed while filesystem is still mounted. This will > cleanup all the virtqueues but virtio_fs object will still be around and

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:48:56PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > This object is used both by fuse_connection as well virt device. So make > this object reference counted and that makes it easy to define life cycle > of the object. > > Now deivce can be removed while filesystem is still mounted. This will > cleanup all the virtqueues but virtio_fs object will still be around and

Hi, Michael Tsirkin pointed out issues w.r.t various locking related TODO items and races w.r.t device removal. In this first round of cleanups, I have taken care of most pressing issues. These patches apply on top of following. git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/fuse.git#virtiofs-v4 I have tested these patches with mount/umount and device removal using qemu monitor. For