On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:18:22AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > Not puppies, just kittens. > > If you don't provide these functions, then exporting with > "subtree_check" won't work. That is no great loss except that people > might find the failure confusing. OK, a client sends you a RENAME. With fhandles of both parents + old and new names in those. Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to figure out whether we should fail with nfserr_inval due to an attempt to make a directory its own descendent. Without being able to locate all ancestors of a directory. You are fond of complaining about the checks that could've been left to server not getting skipped on the client. Now you want to skip them on the server side as well? Can't have it both ways... Seriously, it really doesn't work. You can't do directory modifications without having found the chain of ancestors. No ->get_parent() is OK _only_ for something like tmpfs, where we have the full chains of ancestors towards root all the time. For UBIFS it's obviously not true. Not unless you suck the entire directory tree in memory at the mount time. -- 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
