From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84DFE1C84D7; Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:37:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741120677; cv=none; b=grhPQLuTR/hx+jVhoBUtJ+biCYZGBnzdcE0FHxc2op6UPXTvf675HFgWA5ypuseaV53U31eNeMVdY3FxfmP5G57dzLXiyMW4101cNoCTr4roqUX1+A6LYij/IBmCYASXXVQLYRN5U1azAiqcGDL+LLNXbKr5GQmmZ7FLTlF9UhQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741120677; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xA79ap3bpEUriYkN1bPNbZ+Olo/PCwhjPzuSzMggTww=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=jeypHI6ziUDK7+hWopPOQ3P0QoKJbazEzEUK0e/GsYdaXl0FzSCXuk4+FyyYq/ttOQqMGCy/IsqHnk9ojJ9F8MPmQcHMQsD839eOCCKpjqGjtY5J+LJP3xK+V675nGgxCwkWWE5hKMdoA+OTqMzWxArSxCxofi8V07AcZSGg/do= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=FG7O11FM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="FG7O11FM" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CBF80C4CEE5; Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:37:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1741120677; bh=xA79ap3bpEUriYkN1bPNbZ+Olo/PCwhjPzuSzMggTww=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=FG7O11FM6GQaICjFVqdfiCOEAo0wdrnOoTDso41rXQH8dg+ffvPTaPiGZepBsAUTy mwX0R5jlPYHxUAuNTJ5vDKsuITI5LTkNhOzV2YdXt8D22wT6aj30Kfo6KAspSLrx75 n+tvgZA+iLucqqYYcKPMA7OifAe2nTpZ5SxzFM9IxFo4ln3nW/eTkIX734o+dfUtKi XxO/7Tml00ErkByHb6KTIWH1Jd7Js27exd8+7i24x8tUmJL3e4As9mZVM6IOL41ebl C+mh9tAxZey1sfGBnGiohy9ovGbeqSZih1PTSJn68Dwf9Z8bAYl4Ms2/iVKoE65Thu unEaNCquJXJAw== Received: by pali.im (Postfix) id 07B9E81A; Tue, 4 Mar 2025 21:37:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 21:37:42 +0100 From: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= To: Steve French Cc: Paulo Alcantara , Ronnie Sahlberg , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tom Talpey Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] cifs: Handle all name surrogate reparse points Message-ID: <20250304203742.pcrx3ppkxc6dab4c@pali> References: <20241222145845.23801-1-pali@kernel.org> <20250223222306.plgy3bpy5mjojfve@pali> <20250302122446.dpqd6hlpfmy3fo3l@pali> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 On Sunday 02 March 2025 19:01:00 Steve French wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 6:25 AM Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > On Sunday 23 February 2025 18:48:50 Steve French wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 4:23 PM Pali Rohár 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.