From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C9729E09 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:47:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBB48F8059 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 12:47:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from fieldses.org (fieldses.org [174.143.236.118]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 5k9RJaCxUR5QayHg (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 12:47:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:47:47 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: nfs vs xfstests 193 Message-ID: <20131206204747.GB12613@fieldses.org> References: <20131106115648.GA24804@infradead.org> <52A1CF22.106@oracle.com> <20131206180858.GA2803@infradead.org> <20131206204404.GA12613@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131206204404.GA12613@fieldses.org> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Vasily Isaenko , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, "Sachin S. Prabhu" , Stanislav Kholmanskikh On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 03:44:04PM -0500, bfields wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:08:58AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > 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. > > But, not having tested the behavior, it looks like fs/open.c has a > simlar !S_ISDIR() check. Where's that behavior implemented? > > > I'd prefer to have NFS follow this as well. > > Huh. Sachin, do you remember if there was any other motivation behind > that patch? Never mind, I see, the complaint is about the case where the id's don't change, not about the directory case. So Sachin's 0953e620de0538cbd081f1b45126f6098112a598 doesn't actually have anything to do with this. I'm fine with removing the id comparisons and changing the nfsd behavior to match local filesystems. --b. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs