On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 09:24:18PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > As far as I can tell, the idea of open done in ->d_revalidate() is > > unsalvagable. It's simply the wrong place for that. Note that NFS > > is the only filesystem trying to do atomic open stuff in its ->d_revalidate() > > and it's not succeeding. > > Not doing an open there is prohibitively expensive, though: you are > likely to see your cached inode flushed down the toilet if you just drop > the dentry... Wrong. All you really need is to have that attempt to issue OPEN shifted into ->open() itself. The only interesting part is that we might need to drop the original dentry and use a new one for ->f_path.dentry. Don't drop that dentry; after the case in ->d_revalidate() that would have attempted that OPEN you would either cross into covering vfsmount (in which case dentry should be left alone as you are doing now) or issue ->open(). If it's really not valid (i.e. if OPEN yields a different inode), we can deal with that in ->open() just fine. The *only* subtle part is how to deal with "it's a symlink, go away" from the server. Which will require changes in do_last(). I have that stuff; it'll need debugging serious review once posted. Which I'm going to do over weekend. -- 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
