From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA3229DF9 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 12:09:06 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD134304067 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:09:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id tMqMmnERTP1URFEa (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:08:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:08:58 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: nfs vs xfstests 193 Message-ID: <20131206180858.GA2803@infradead.org> References: <20131106115648.GA24804@infradead.org> <52A1CF22.106@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52A1CF22.106@oracle.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Stanislav Kholmanskikh Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Vasily Isaenko , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 05:20:34PM +0400, Stanislav Kholmanskikh wrote: > Just to make the behaviour more consistent between NFS and other > "local" file systems as It was done by > commit https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/commit/?id=0953e620de0538cbd081f1b45126f6098112a598 Seems like we got others in line with XFS behavior. I'd prefer to have NFS follow this as well. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs