On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:50:38AM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:
>
> "J. Bruce Fields":
> > It's still kind of a bandaid, but it's the only thing I've thought of
> > that at least helps a little and isn't a huge pain. Any other ideas?
>
> How about introducing a tiny inline function which returns either EBUSY
> or ESTALE?
>
> static inline int busy_or_stale()
> {
> if (!test_distributed_fs())
> return -EBUSY;
> return -ESTALE;
> }
Why do you think -EBUSY's the right error in the local filesystem case?
This condition really shouldn't happen in the local filesystem case
anyway. If anything maybe it should be -EIO, since it looks like a sign
your filesystem's corrupted.
> For nfs, the test function will be something like this.
>
> int test_nfsd()
> {
> int ret;
> struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> char comm[sizeof(tsk->comm)];
>
> ret = 0;
> if (tsk->flags & PF_KTHREAD) {
> get_task_comm(comm, tsk);
> ret = !strcmp(comm, "nfsd");
> }
>
> return ret;
> }
>
> I know this "by-name" test is not good.
Also you'd want to be checking for nfs, not nfsd.
--b.
--
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
