On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:48:42 -0400
Peter Staubach <pstaubach@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I don't think that the code ends up being all that complex, actually. I will have to dig out the patches that I had previously to look to see what they did. I am pretty sure that they handled all of these cases. I also had some tests which exercised the modified path based system calls and at least, at one point in time, they would run without returning ESTALE to the user level.
>
> Let me see what I can find. SteveD, you wouldn't have squirrelled away a copy of my stuff from Red Hat, would you?
>
> Thanx...
>
> ps
>
Yes, your original set was very comprehensive, AFAICT. I'm not sure if
it'll apply to mainline well at this point, but I was definitely using
it as a guideline for what to do here.
The cover letter for the patchset that you sent out a few years ago had
a testcase in it. I was planning to use that to test once I start
broading this to other syscalls:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/10/267
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
