On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 23:03 +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: [...] > >> So if I understand you correctly, patch 2/2 is not needed for correctness? >> Meaning that if overlay inode times are not uptodate, nothing fatal will >> happen? Or did you mean that I must take care of signalling the client >> that time values are not reliable for overlayfs? >> >> If patch 2/2 is indeed not a must, then I would like to ask you to ACK >> patch 1/2. It seems quite simple, trivial and harmless to me even without >> diving deep into NFS protocols. I think patch 1/2 should be enough for >> first implementation - it certainly is enough to fix the nfstest_posix failures. >> >> Thanks! >> Amir. > > Patch #1 looks fine. I think we ought to wait on #2. > > We really should be doing getattrs like this, but when that fails we > should probably just zero out the wcc / change_info4 at the end rather > than pretending that it's valid. > > I think Bruce or I can take care of that bit after patch #1 is merged. Great! Then I'll stack patch #1 along with my overlay nfs export series with your ACK. Thanks! Amir. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
