From nobody Mon Sep 06 13:21:57 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E919017BDAEA for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 13:22:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from crest@rlwinm.de) Received: from mail.rlwinm.de (mail.rlwinm.de [138.201.35.217]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4H38FV1LF6z4sYD for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 13:22:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from crest@rlwinm.de) Received: from alteisen.local (200116b864035300b0f5ea4bd09de10a.dip.versatel-1u1.de [IPv6:2001:16b8:6403:5300:b0f5:ea4b:d09d:e10a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.rlwinm.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1DFB3974E for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 13:21:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: should copy_file_range(2) have a non-Linux flag? To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org References: From: Crest Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 15:21:57 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 List-Id: Filesystems List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-fs List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4H38FV1LF6z4sYD X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of crest@rlwinm.de designates 138.201.35.217 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=crest@rlwinm.de X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.30 / 15.00]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-fs@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(1.00)[1.000]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[rlwinm.de]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:138.201.0.0/16, country:DE]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[2001:16b8:6403:5300:b0f5:ea4b:d09d:e10a:received] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 04.09.21 17:08, Rick Macklem wrote: > Hi, > > I just proposed a patch for VOP_COPY_FILE_RANGE(9) > that adds a kernel only flag to specify "return after 1second > with a partial copy". I'd like to use it for the NFSv4.2 server, > so that the RPC replies in a reasonable time frame. > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D31829 > > The question that came up is... > "should this flag be visible to userland?" > > The only argument I can think of against doing this is > that it makes the syscall non-Linux compatible. > (Also, the NFS server requirement seems a bit of an oddball > and I'm not sure an application would want this capability?) > > Do you think this flag should be exposed to userland (ie the syscall)? > I can see usecases for this flag: * NFS Ganesha * Report progress during large file copies e.g. in a git annex special remote