Re: ->atomic_open() fun (was Re: [RFC] a possible way of reducing the PITA of ->d_name audits)

[Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 09:36:18PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 09:22:05PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 
> > You are talking about the disconnected directory case?  That can't
> > happen in this call path, since it's following a normal component from
> > a parent directory, which by definition isn't disconnected.
> 
> Huh?  No, just a lookup in a different place with server giving you
> the nodeid of the directory you had in that place in dcache.
> d_splice_alias() has no choice other than "move the existing alias
> into the right place" - directory inodes *can't* have multiple
> hashed dentries, period.
> 
> > Just realized, that open_last_lookups() will bypass lookup_open() on
> > cached positive anyway, so really no point in handing that  inside
> > lookup_open().
> 
> IIRC, when the last time it came up, it was along the lines of "could
> we call ->atomic_open() for positive dentries as well?" and I think
> it had been about FUSE.

The last iteration of those threads I've seen was in October 2023; has
anything changed since then?