From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miklos Szeredi Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS: nfs4_lookup_revalidate need to report STALE inodes. Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:52:00 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20140714151405.2fa06dd7@notabene.brown> <20140714081455.69f55224@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20140714223513.47807c98@notabene.brown> <20140714090028.6f04fd2c@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20140715085727.6fa12272@notabene.brown> <20140714194738.5aafaf25@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20140717115024.1eb7433d@notabene.brown> <20140717072241.2c1549a3@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: NeilBrown , Trond Myklebust , Alexander Viro , NFS , Linux-Fsdevel To: Jeff Layton Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140717072241.2c1549a3-9yPaYZwiELC+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > What's so special about an EOPENSTALE return from finish_open that we > need to handle retries in do_last? It seems like we could get rid of the > stale_open label and just let do_filp_open handle it like we would > an ESTALE return from any other spot in the function. > > Just for giggles, here's an RFC patch. It builds but I haven't tested > it. It might also be possible to do some cleanup around saved_parent > with this. > > Thoughts? EOPENSTALE is an optimization for the redoing only the last component. It's the analogue of ->d_revalidate() failure, in which case lookup of that component only is retried path components before that are not. I'm not sure if it's a valid optimization, but if not, then we should also consider doing LOOKUP_REVAL on the whole path on any d_revalidate() failure as well. Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html