On 2019/6/1 00:18, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* Peng Tao ([email protected]) wrote:
The fuse wire protocol is changed so that we can unmap multiple
mappings in a single call.
Signed-off-by: Peng Tao <[email protected]>
Hi Peng,
Thanks for this.
---
contrib/virtiofsd/fuse_kernel.h | 9 +++++++--
contrib/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c | 21 ++++++++++++++------
contrib/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.h | 5 +++--
contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
4 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/contrib/virtiofsd/fuse_kernel.h b/contrib/virtiofsd/fuse_kernel.h
index ce46046a4f..12e1d06826 100644
--- a/contrib/virtiofsd/fuse_kernel.h
+++ b/contrib/virtiofsd/fuse_kernel.h
@@ -830,9 +830,14 @@ struct fuse_setupmapping_out {
uint64_t len[FUSE_SETUPMAPPING_ENTRIES];
};
-struct fuse_removemapping_in {
+struct fuse_removemapping_in_header {
/* An already open handle */
- uint64_t fh;
+ uint64_t fh;
+ /* number of fuse_removemapping_in follows */
+ uint32_t count;
OK, good that fixes the count.
However, see my message from 22nd May replying to Miklos
wherewe talk about how there's a:
fuse_batch_forget_in and 'count' fuse_forget_one
we should name these using the same scheme, i.e.
fuse_removemapping_in and 'count' fuse_removemapping_one
If you can respin with that then I think we're good.
oops, sorry for missing that one. I'll respin and resend.
Thanks,
Tao
