On Mar 13, 2014, at 17:26, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Put differently: if anyone out there is looking for something to do, then reuniting nfs_async_rename() with its long lost synchronous cousins would be a nice little cleanup. _________________________________ 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
