On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 9:32 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Here's a potentially better attempt - basically we allow LOOKUP_NONBLOCK
> with LOOKUP_RCU, and if we end up dropping LOOKUP_RCU, then we generally
> return -EAGAIN if LOOKUP_NONBLOCK is set as we can no longer guarantee
> that we won't block.
Looks sane to me.
I don't love the "__unlazy_walk vs unlazy_walk" naming - I think it
needs to be more clear about what the difference is, but I think the
basic patch looks sane, and looks about as big as I would have
expected it to be.
But yes, I'll leave it to Al.
And if we do this - and I think we should - I'd also love to see a new
flag in 'struct open_how' to openat2(), even if it's only to enable
tests. RESOLVE_NONBLOCK?
Linus
