On Sunday 02 March 2025 19:01:00 Steve French wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 6:25 AM Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sunday 23 February 2025 18:48:50 Steve French wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 4:23 PM Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello Steve, I see that you have merged first two changes (1/4 and 2/4) > > > > from this patch series, but the remaining (3/4 and 4/4). Is there any > > > > reason why 3/4 and 4/4 was not taken? > > > > > > Mainly because I wasn't able to easily test it, and didn't get test > > > feedback for anyone else > > > on those two who had tried it. > > > > > > I am ok with looking at them again - and thx for rebasing. > > > > Ok, when you have a time, please look at them. > > > > > There are some of the 41 patches in your updated cifs branch that do look suitable or rc5 > > > > There is "cifs: Change translation of STATUS_DELETE_PENDING to -EBUSY" > > which stops returning -ENOENT for directory entry which still exists. > > IIRC - there were some objections to this if it could break any > plausible existing application behavior, but will need to dig into the > thread from earlier. > > Tom or Paulo, > Do you remember if this is one that you had mentioned? I have not figured out any regression for the STATUS_DELETE_PENDING/EBUSY change. If you have some scenario or other test case for it then please let me know what can be wrong here. I think that it should not cause any regression because applications on ENOENT error cannot expect that the dir entry still existing.
