Hi all, Excerpts from Jeff Layton's message of Tue Oct 19 01:10:59 +1100 2010: > See: > > http://nfs.sourceforge.net/ > > ...section D2. The faq mentions that NFSv4 could do away with it > because it's stateful, but that's not really the case either. Thanks for the pointer. > > It seems to me that if the sillyrename function is indeed necessary that > > we should not reveal the temporary filename it produces to userspace, > > but I wonder if that might create issues (say if userspace thinks a > > directory is empty when it acutally has a sillyrename file in it)? > > > > Basically I want to know if the behaviour I've outlined below is > > the expected behaviour of NFS, or if you considder this a bug? > > > > > It's expected. Sillyrenaming sucks, but there really is no great > alternative to it. It's one of the prices we pay for having NFSv2/3 be > stateless. > > I suppose in principle we could do things like hide silly-renamed > dentries from userspace, but that might also be problematic. You'd > still be unable to remove a directory that has a silly-renamed file in > it, for instance even though it looks empty. There would also be > inconsistencies as other machines and the server would still see > the .nfsXXXXX files. I had a feeling that would be the case. > The bottom line is that you need to be really careful with programs > that use delete-on-last-close when running on NFS. Thanks to everyone who replied for clarifying this matter for me. Cheers, -Ian -- 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
