Ian Kent wrote: > 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? DOH, which both patches together end up doing. > > 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. Unfortunately not, I still need to use this in the follow_link() method without the lock. 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
