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 3FCB17F92 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:44:30 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086058F804B for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:44:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id AuLBiSwsGb1PEdV4 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:44:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52A728A7.8020905@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:43:51 +0400 From: Stanislav Kholmanskikh MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: nfs vs xfstests 193 References: <20131106115648.GA24804@infradead.org> <52A1CF22.106@oracle.com> <20131206180858.GA2803@infradead.org> <20131206204404.GA12613@fieldses.org> <20131206204747.GB12613@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20131206204747.GB12613@fieldses.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Vasily Isaenko , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, "Sachin S. Prabhu" , xfs@oss.sgi.com On 12/07/2013 12:47 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > 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. Great. I will try to produce a patch for this. > > --b. > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs