On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> Really no one able to clarify the difference between the FUSE invalidate
>>>> and delete dentry requests?
>>>
>>> It may sound strange to you, but I think the documentation is clear enough.
>>> The difference is that in delete case, you *know* that the entry has
>>> been deleted
>>> and in invalidate case, you may not know what happened to the entry.
>>> The specific use cases are implementation specific, but maybe you lost
>>> contact with remote server or maybe the remote protocol imposes a timeout
>>> for validity or maybe you do not have enough information
>>> to figure out if the entry has been deleted and re-created.
>>> Invalidate simply means that you no longer know that the entry is valid.
>>
>> That was the intent, yes. However 'invalidate' + 'lookup negative'
>> should be equivalent to 'delete'. And it is.
>>
>> The reason why 'delete' was introduced by commit 451d0f599934 ("FUSE:
>> Notifying the kernel of deletion.") is that 'invalidate' wasn't able
>> to remove in-use subtrees.
>>
>> Commit bafc9b754f75 ("vfs: More precise tests in d_invalidate")
>> changed that, so now 'notify_delete' is superfluous and AFAICS the
>> effect of it is exactly the same as 'notify_invalidate'.
>>
>
> Minus fsnotify_nameremove() for whatever it is worth.
Ah, right. But fuse lacks proper fsnotify support for remote fs
anyway, so it's not worth much.
Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
