Ian Kent wrote: > Sage Weil wrote: >> Would it be possible to avoid the upcall in revalidate, and instead fail >> and let the subsequent lookup path do it? (I'm guessing the upcall >> doesn't happen for _every_ revalidate?) snip ... > > It was more than three years ago when I tried to make everything go > through lookup so my memory is pretty unclear now. In the end I think > there was one case in real_lookup() where the lookup was skipped, > revalidate was called and failed but lookup wasn't then called again and > I got an incorrect failure. AFAICR all other code paths that hold the > mutex over lookup and revalidate perform the revalidate first and then > the lookup if that fails, which avoids this case. I've managed to locate the work that I did on this (on an old machine I left as it was for posterity). I haven't had a chance to look at what I did closely and a lot has changed in autofs4 since. The one thing that I'm fairly sure I would need to be able to make this work is the order of the calls in real_lookup() to be revalidate then lookup. Would that work for real_lookup() given that we hold the mutex now? In fact this might be an opportunity for me to clean up my sloppy DCACHE_AUTOFS_PENDING handling by moving it all under the inode mutex. Since this is likely to be quite a bit of effort on my part could I impose on you to help me understand the issue you need to resolve? I'd really like to feel it's worth the effort. Ian -- 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
