On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:24:04PM +0800, Peng Tao wrote: >> The reason I didn't add it was because PNFS_LAYOUTRET_ON_SETATTR is >> too much for blocks layout. What we really want is to return layouts >> on truncate and chown, instead of _all_ setattr requests. >> >> Boaz, does object layout require return on setattr for other reasons? >> If not, I'd suggest we change PNFS_LAYOUTRET_ON_SETATTR to return only >> on chown/truncate events. > > I was actually going to ask the same question, I can't see a point > why the object layout driver would want it on any other setattr. > > In fact it could probably be narrowed down to chown or truncate to a smaller > size. > > I'd also love to know why we don't want to do this for the filelayout driver. > Why would it be needed? The layout isn't expected to change. If the chown affects permissions then it is up to the DS to enforce that (although POSIX does not require it to do that). -- 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
