On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:52:00 +0200 Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jeff Layton > <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > What's so special about an EOPENSTALE return from finish_open that we > > need to handle retries in do_last? It seems like we could get rid of the > > stale_open label and just let do_filp_open handle it like we would > > an ESTALE return from any other spot in the function. > > > > Just for giggles, here's an RFC patch. It builds but I haven't tested > > it. It might also be possible to do some cleanup around saved_parent > > with this. > > > > Thoughts? > > EOPENSTALE is an optimization for the redoing only the last component. > It's the analogue of ->d_revalidate() failure, in which case lookup of > that component only is retried path components before that are not. > > I'm not sure if it's a valid optimization, but if not, then we should > also consider doing LOOKUP_REVAL on the whole path on any > d_revalidate() failure as well. > > Thanks, > Miklos Ok, that makes sense and it's seems like good enough reason to keep it as is for now. We can just drop my RFC patch... Thanks, -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@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
