From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Harkes Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.4.19pre8][RFC] remove-NFS-close-to-open from VFS (was Re: [PATCHSET] 2.4.19-pre8-jp12) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:12:11 -0400 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20021018171211.GA12509@ravel.coda.cs.cmu.edu> References: <200205162142.AWF00051@netmail.netcologne.de> <20020517034357.GA18449@ravel.coda.cs.cmu.edu> <20021017203804.GA24523@ravel.coda.cs.cmu.edu> <15791.12331.663212.692225@charged.uio.no> <20021017221652.GA26692@ravel.coda.cs.cmu.edu> <15791.20061.369962.893823@charged.uio.no> <20021018164916.GA11336@ravel.coda.cs.cmu.edu> <15792.16095.699839.453962@charged.uio.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Trond Myklebust Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15792.16095.699839.453962@charged.uio.no> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 07:03:27PM +0200, Trond Myklebust wrote: > I agree that is a bug (and thanks for pointing it out). I do not, > however, see it as an argument for turning off revalidation > altogether. > Perhaps the right thing to do then is to pass down a flag > (LOOKUP_DOT?) that states that we are in fact doing a revalidation of > '.' and/or '..' ? That would help me a lot as I can then reliably recognize when d_revalidate is called from the new 'context' and try to appropriately handle this case. Let me get the POSIX stuff right, In the case of open('.') in your example, I guess d_revalidate would check the inode to see if the object was removed. And possibly retry the lookup, but if that fails only unhash the dentry, not return a 'validation failure'. So, we're not really revalidating the dcache entry at all. Maybe the code really wants to revalidate the inode. Jan