[PR #2491] [MERGED] [Improvement #2490] Add GUARDED_BY to FdEntity and fix locking #2574

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-03-04 02:06:14 +03:00 by kerem · 0 comments

kerem commented

2026-03-04 02:06:14 +03:00

Owner

📋 Pull Request Information

Original PR: https://github.com/s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse/pull/2491
Author: @ggtakec
Created: 7/7/2024
Status: ✅ Merged
Merged: 10/14/2024
Merged by: @gaul

Base: master ← Head: feat_fdent_locking

📝 Commits (1)

87d83eb [Improvement #2490] Add GUARDED_BY to FdEntity and fix locking

📊 Changes

3 files changed (+82 additions, -51 deletions)

View changed files

📝 src/fdcache_entity.cpp (+18 -5)
📝 src/fdcache_entity.h (+59 -41)
📝 src/s3fs.cpp (+5 -5)

📄 Description

Relevant Issue (if applicable)

#2490

Details

There were too many requests for fixes in PR #2490, so I created a PR based on #2490.

The biggest difference is that the RowFlushHasLock() (and FlushHasLock()) methods are reentrant, so in order to maintain a strict locking state, it is necessary to separate the functions.
For other details, please see the comments in PR #2490.

_{🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.}

## 📋 Pull Request Information **Original PR:** https://github.com/s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse/pull/2491 **Author:** [@ggtakec](https://github.com/ggtakec) **Created:** 7/7/2024 **Status:** ✅ Merged **Merged:** 10/14/2024 **Merged by:** [@gaul](https://github.com/gaul) **Base:** `master` ← **Head:** `feat_fdent_locking` --- ### 📝 Commits (1) - [`87d83eb`](https://github.com/s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse/commit/87d83eb0f81deca8d3c8c83768a564e447bbeacc) [Improvement #2490] Add GUARDED_BY to FdEntity and fix locking ### 📊 Changes **3 files changed** (+82 additions, -51 deletions) <details> <summary>View changed files</summary> 📝 `src/fdcache_entity.cpp` (+18 -5) 📝 `src/fdcache_entity.h` (+59 -41) 📝 `src/s3fs.cpp` (+5 -5) </details> ### 📄 Description ### Relevant Issue (if applicable) #2490 ### Details There were too many requests for fixes in PR #2490, so I created a PR based on #2490. The biggest difference is that the RowFlushHasLock() (and FlushHasLock()) methods are reentrant, so in order to maintain a strict locking state, it is necessary to separate the functions. For other details, please see the comments in PR #2490. --- <sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>