Re: [PATCH 0/4] cifs: Handle all name surrogate reparse points

["Pali Rohár" <pali@kernel.org>]

On Sunday 02 March 2025 19:01:00 Steve French wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 6:25 AM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday 23 February 2025 18:48:50 Steve French wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 4:23 PM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Steve, I see that you have merged first two changes (1/4 and 2/4)
> > > > from this patch series, but the remaining (3/4 and 4/4). Is there any
> > > > reason why 3/4 and 4/4 was not taken?
> > >
> > > Mainly because I wasn't able to easily test it, and didn't get test
> > > feedback for anyone else
> > > on those two who had tried it.
> > >
> > > I am ok with looking at them again - and thx for rebasing.
> >
> > Ok, when you have a time, please look at them.
> >
> > > There are some of the 41 patches in your updated cifs branch that do look suitable or rc5
> >
> > There is "cifs: Change translation of STATUS_DELETE_PENDING to -EBUSY"
> > which stops returning -ENOENT for directory entry which still exists.
> 
> IIRC - there were some objections to this if it could break any
> plausible existing application behavior, but will need to dig into the
> thread from earlier.
> 
> Tom or Paulo,
> Do you remember if this is one that you had mentioned?

I have not figured out any regression for the
STATUS_DELETE_PENDING/EBUSY change.

If you have some scenario or other test case for it then please let me
know what can be wrong here.

I think that it should not cause any regression because applications on
ENOENT error cannot expect that the dir entry still existing.