From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Leonardo Chiquitto <leonardo.lists@gmail.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
autofs@linux.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: automount should ignore LOOKUP_FOLLOW
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:42:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFy3VN2Y-oadFUMdCaBVQtPT9Ae3fDQCw5vHfA6UvH8GiA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bouv17dc.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
>
> Yes, 2.6.38 and later kernels do trigger on stat(2) but not on lstat(2).
>
> My question is this: does this behavior improve anything compared to
> kernels before 2.6.38? Because I don't see that it does, in fact it's
> just causing regressions.
>
> You say it's a step in the right direction but I don't see why. Either
> we want stat *and* lstat to both be correct and trigger the automount or
> we are satisfied with the incorrect but well established practice of not
> triggering on (l)stat.
>
> The middle ground makes no sense IMO, there's nothing gained by the
> differentiated behavior based on LOOKUP_FOLLOW.
>
> Can you explain why it's better if stat() tiggers automounts and gives a
> correct result but lstat() doesn't?
I have to say that this is a very cogent question.
The one thing I've not seen in the thread yet is a description of the
failure. What does the regression look like? Just "very slow 'ls' with
some versions of 'ls'" or what?
I'm inclined to apply the patch as a regression fix, but I'll let this
thread try to convince me for another day..
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-08 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-05 16:06 [PATCH] vfs: automount should ignore LOOKUP_FOLLOW Miklos Szeredi
2011-09-05 16:37 ` David Howells
2011-09-05 17:02 ` Miklos Szeredi
2011-09-06 3:53 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-06 4:03 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-06 8:09 ` Miklos Szeredi
2011-09-06 14:38 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-06 15:39 ` Miklos Szeredi
2011-09-08 12:36 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-08 13:38 ` Miklos Szeredi
2011-09-08 17:42 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2011-09-08 19:50 ` Al Viro
2011-09-08 20:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-08 21:54 ` Al Viro
2011-09-09 3:37 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-09 3:33 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-09 3:18 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-22 12:29 ` Jeff Layton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+55aFy3VN2Y-oadFUMdCaBVQtPT9Ae3fDQCw5vHfA6UvH8GiA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=autofs@linux.kernel.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=leonardo.lists@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=raven@themaw.net \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).