On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:47:49 -0400 Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2014, at 16:22, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:08:01 -0400 > > Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > >> On Mar 13, 2014, at 15:24, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> If a file is sillyrenamed, then the generic vfs_unlink code will skip > >>> emitting fsnotify events for it. > >>> > >>> This patch has the sillyrename code do that instead. > >>> > >>> In truth this is a little bit odd since we aren't actually removing the > >>> dentry per-se, but renaming it. Still, this is probably the right thing > >>> to do since it's what userland apps expect to see when an unlink() > >>> occurs or some file is renamed on top of the dentry. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> fs/nfs/dir.c | 1 + > >>> fs/nfs/unlink.c | 2 ++ > >>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/dir.c b/fs/nfs/dir.c > >>> index 4a48fe4b84b6..591aec9b1719 100644 > >>> --- a/fs/nfs/dir.c > >>> +++ b/fs/nfs/dir.c > >>> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ > >>> #include <linux/sched.h> > >>> #include <linux/kmemleak.h> > >>> #include <linux/xattr.h> > >>> +#include <linux/fsnotify.h> > >>> > >>> #include "delegation.h" > >>> #include "iostat.h" > >>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/unlink.c b/fs/nfs/unlink.c > >>> index 11d78944de79..547ed0cd59db 100644 > >>> --- a/fs/nfs/unlink.c > >>> +++ b/fs/nfs/unlink.c > >>> @@ -355,6 +355,8 @@ static void nfs_async_rename_done(struct rpc_task *task, void *calldata) > >>> > >>> if (task->tk_status != 0) > >>> nfs_cancel_async_unlink(old_dentry); > >>> + else if (old_dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_NFSFS_RENAMED) > >>> + fsnotify_nameremove(old_dentry, S_ISDIR(old_dentry->d_inode->i_mode)); > >>> } > >> > >> Any reason why we shouldn’t just do this in nfs_sillyrename() itself? > >> > > > > We certainly could, but then you'd probably never get the event if the > > process waiting on the async sillyrename got killed while waiting on > > the reply. > > Just send it anyway. The dentry will have been scheduled to be unlinked no matter whether or not the process is killed. > Hrm, I dunno... If we do that then we may end up sending the event before it has actually occurred. I'm not sure if that's a problem or not, but it seems iffy. I don't get it though -- why not do this in the rpc_call_done handler? If we do it there then we know we'll only send the event if the rename succeeded. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
