Hi Liam,
On 2019/7/30 20:22, Liam Merwick wrote:
> On 30/07/2019 01:27, piaojun wrote:
>> Use F_GETLK for fcntl when F_OFD_GETLK not defined.
>
>
> Use F_GETLK/F_SETLK for fcntl when F_OFD_GETLK/F_OFD_SETLK not defined.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jun Piao <piao...@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 9 +++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
>> b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
>> index 9ae1381..757785b 100644
>> --- a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
>> +++ b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
>> @@ -1619,7 +1619,11 @@ static void lo_getlk(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> +#ifdef F_OFD_GETLK
>> ret = fcntl(plock->fd, F_OFD_GETLK, lock);
>> +#else
>> + ret = fcntl(plock->fd, F_GETLK, lock);
>> +#endif
>> if (ret == -1)
>> saverr = errno;
>> pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
>> @@ -1668,7 +1672,12 @@ static void lo_setlk(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
>>
>> /* TODO: Is it alright to modify flock? */
>> lock->l_pid = 0;
>> +
>> +#ifdef F_OFD_GETLK
>
>
> This checks for F_OFD_GETLK but uses F_OFD_SETLK (albeit unlikely one being
> defined without the other)
Right, F_OFD_SETLK looks better.
>
>
>> ret = fcntl(plock->fd, F_OFD_SETLK, lock);
>> +#else
>> + ret = fcntl(plock->fd, F_SETLK, lock);
>> +#endif
>> if (ret == -1) {
>> saverr = errno;
>> }
>>
> Might qemu_lock_fd()/qemu_unlock_fd() in util/osdep.c be useful to hide this
> instead?
Yes, I'm trying re-write do_getlk/setlk with qemu_lock_fd, and thanks for
your suggestion.
Thanks,
Jun
>
> Regards,
> Liam
>
