On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 02:46:55PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > Ok, that helps. In that case, this patch might be a reasonable > forward-port of the one Neil sent earlier today. Note that this doesn't > really do anything for the umount problem, but it does seem to fix the > testcase for the problem I've been looking at. > > Thoughts? If we really go for "in this case revalidate should be weaker", we might as well introduce a separate method for it. As it is, we have several callers of ->d_revalidate(); this one (in complete_walk(), only for FS_REVAL_DOT filesystems) and ones in lookup_dcache() and lookup_fast() (in both cases we have and want the name to match). There are only two fs with FS_REVAL_DOT present - nfs and 9p. *IF* we want to make ->d_revalidate() on NFS behave differently in complete_walk() case, it would argue for just splitting the method in two, replacing FS_REVAL_DOT with "dentry has this method" and probably taking a good look at what 9p needs in the same case. -- 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
