On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 18:43 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 15:18 -0800, Matt Helsley wrote: > > Yes, I was aware that the inode might be dirtied by another container. I > > was thinking that, at least in the case of NFS, it makes sense to report > > the node name of the container that did the original mount. Of course > > this doesn't address the general RPC client case and, like patch 3, it > > makes the superblock solution rather NFS-specific. That brings me to a > > basic question: Are there any RPC clients in the kernel that do not > > operate on behalf of NFS? > > Yes. There is, for instance, the portmapper/rpcbind client. <snip> OK that's a good example. Point taken. > The NFS and > lockd servers also sometime needs to send RPC callbacks. Yes, these won't have an NFS superblock handy and hence they use the node name cached in the RPC client struct. That means that these patches have only addressed NFS client-side namespace issues. Have you seen J. Bruce Fields post on the nfsd side of things? Cheers, -Matt Helsley -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
