On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 17:21 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > 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. While nfs_async_rename() may currently reside in fs/nfs/unlink.c, the function itself is completely independent of sillyrename. It doesn't even share any common structures. Why should we start adding stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with rename to it when we don't have to? -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
