From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265018AbTFQXxK (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 19:53:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265021AbTFQXxK (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 19:53:10 -0400 Received: from 216-239-45-4.google.com ([216.239.45.4]:11660 "EHLO 216-239-45-4.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265018AbTFQXxI (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 19:53:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:06:58 -0700 From: Frank Cusack To: Trond Myklebust Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs_unlink() again, and trivial nfs_fhget Message-ID: <20030617170658.B19126@google.com> References: <20030617051408.A17974@google.com> <20030617165507.A19126@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030617165507.A19126@google.com>; from fcusack@fcusack.com on Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 04:55:07PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 04:55:07PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 11:41:18AM -0700, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > If you think that code is wrong then make an argument for > > changing it, and send me a patch. > > I did make an argument, and did send you a patch. Please see my email > with message id <20030611002226.A19078@google.com>. Let me quickly amend that, the referenced message is also a VFS change, but a worse one than proposed in this thread. The reason I proposed to do it in the VFS is that I couldn't get it to work in the NFS code. After returning from nfs_rename(), I'd promptly get a null pointer deref. Yes, I did want to suggest an NFS patch, but it became clear that after the VFS calls ->rename, it expects things to happen which I didn't do. More specifically, I avoided the 'if (!d_unhashed()) d_drop()' code, and rather than figure out the requirements I simply figured I'd propose a VFS change. Simple just seemed good to me ... I don't think it's so bad for the VFS to have *small* bits of fs-specific knowledge. You could call the flag (say) DCACHE_DONT_UNLINK if it makes it sound less specific. /fc