[PATCH v3 07/13] vfs_btrfs: add [GET/SET]_COMPRESSION handlers

[David Disseldorp]

Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 12:57:57PM +0100, David Disseldorp wrote:
>> Translate such requests into FS_IOC_GETFLAGS and FS_IOC_SETFLAGS
>ioctls
>> respectively. The module makes no distinction between compression
>types,
>> only whether or not compression is enabled.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss at samba.org>
>> ---
>>  source3/modules/vfs_btrfs.c | 121
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>  source3/wscript             |   2 +-
>>  2 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/source3/modules/vfs_btrfs.c
>b/source3/modules/vfs_btrfs.c
>> index f854f2a..d65b46a 100644
>> --- a/source3/modules/vfs_btrfs.c
>> +++ b/source3/modules/vfs_btrfs.c
>> @@ -18,11 +18,16 @@
>>   */
>>  
>>  #include <linux/ioctl.h>
>> +#include <linux/fs.h>
>>  #include <sys/ioctl.h>
>> +#include <sys/types.h>
>> +#include <sys/stat.h>
>> +#include <unistd.h>
>> +#include <fcntl.h>
>>  #include "includes.h"
>> -#include "system/filesys.h"
>>  #include "smbd/smbd.h"
>> -#include "../librpc/gen_ndr/smbXsrv.h"
>> +#include "librpc/gen_ndr/smbXsrv.h"
>> +#include "librpc/gen_ndr/ioctl.h"
>>  #include "lib/util/tevent_ntstatus.h"
>>  
>>  struct btrfs_ioctl_clone_range_args {
>> @@ -107,7 +112,7 @@ static struct tevent_req
>*btrfs_copy_chunk_send(struct vfs_handle_struct *handle
>>  	cr_args.src_length = (uint64_t)num;
>>  
>>  	ret = ioctl(dest_fsp->fh->fd, BTRFS_IOC_CLONE_RANGE, &cr_args);
>> -	SMB_VFS_STRICT_UNLOCK(src_fsp->conn, src_fsp, &dest_lck);
>> +	SMB_VFS_STRICT_UNLOCK(src_fsp->conn, dest_fsp, &dest_lck);
>>  	SMB_VFS_STRICT_UNLOCK(src_fsp->conn, src_fsp, &src_lck);
>>  	if (ret < 0) {
>
>David - I was reviewing the patchset and was wondering about
>this hunk:
>
>Shouldn't this change be :
>
>-	SMB_VFS_STRICT_UNLOCK(src_fsp->conn, src_fsp, &dest_lck);
>
>+	SMB_VFS_STRICT_UNLOCK(dest_fsp->conn, dest_fsp, &dest_lck);
>
>I'm not sure if src_fsp and dest_fsp can be on different conn
>structs here, but this seems strange to me - the ->conn pointer
>should be consistent between fsp handles.

Yes, you're right. Thanks Jeremy!
This change really belongs in a separate commit too.

Cheers, David