From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:04:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from fieldses.org (mail.fieldses.org [66.93.2.214]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id lALJ3m07013520 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:03:52 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:03:50 -0500 Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc2 XFS nfsd hang Message-ID: <20071121190350.GA28029@fieldses.org> References: <20071114070400.GA25708@puku.stupidest.org> <20071114152952.GA4210@infradead.org> <20071114173922.GC14254@fieldses.org> <20071114174419.GA15271@infradead.org> <20071114175322.GD14254@fieldses.org> <20071114180241.GA16656@infradead.org> <20071114180838.GE14254@fieldses.org> <20071121150746.GB8454@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071121150746.GB8454@infradead.org> From: "J. Bruce Fields" Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Chris Wedgwood , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, LKML On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 03:07:46PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 01:08:38PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > Personally I'd prefer it to only grow a struct stat or rather it's members > > > But the nfsd code currently expects a dentry so this might require some > > > major refactoring. > > > > Well, we need to check for mountpoints, for example, so I don't see any > > way out of needing a dentry. What's the drawback? > > You're right - we'd probably need the dentry. The drawback is that > we need to always get it in the dcache. Which might be a good thing > depending on the workload. In any case, if the new api were only used by nfsd for now, then there'd be no change here. Seems like it might be worth a try. --b.